Why do intelligent people become stupid? How does a society of literate people choose suicidal paths?
German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought deeply about these questions in 1942 while imprisoned by the Nazis. His theory is more terrifying than you think, and more relevant than ever in this utterly stupid society that we are decaying into.
In this video, we break down Bonhoeffer’s theory of stupidity: why smart people surrender their thinking, how power creates mass stupidity, and why you can’t convince someone once they’ve crossed that line.
This isn’t about low IQ or bad education — it’s about the psychological surrender that makes even brilliant minds vulnerable to manipulation.
What You’ll Learn
Why stupidity is more dangerous than evil
How intelligent people become stupid under certain conditions
The sociological mechanism behind mass conformity
Why facts and logic fail against stupidity
The only way to overcome stupidity (and it’s not what you think)
Based on Bonhoeffer’s essay «After Ten Years» from Letters and Papers from Prison, written just months before his execution by the Nazi regime.
Let’s start with an anecdote: About a year ago, a friend of mine become the regional HR director in an industrial company with several factories, countries, thousands of employees, and millions of urgent and important problems to deal with. Only after a few months later, when he was still trying to control the situation, he had a request from his boss, the corporate HR director.
Among the many priorities and problems (salaries, talent attraction and retention, HR policies, internal organization, communication, etc), she asked him what was his plan to celebrate the LGTBIQ pride. She didn’t care if there were many other HR issues that could affect business, but she insisted that this was her priority, and therefore also his. So he had to waste his precious time and improvise some events, rainbow flags and pollitically correct communications (that noone cared about) to make her happy and allow him to focus on real HR issues.
(Before I get lynched, I must clarify that neither him nor myself defend any discrimination at the workplace. That’s the usual accusation and stigmatization that is used to erradicate any critical thinking.)
Another anecdote: My bank, ING, around those dates, thought that it was a good idea to send me a message celebrating my sexual diversity and pride. I formally complained that my sexual tendencies were none of their business. As a customer, I expect my bank to be ideologically and politically neutral. Of course, they answered with the usual nonsense disguised in good intentions.
But this are not exceptions, but rather the norm. In the ideological warfield that our society has become, wokeism has conquered not only the public institutions, but also many of the private ones. Wokeism is the troyan horse that allows totalitarian ideologies to conquer power in institutions and organizations from within.
In fact, most HR departments and trade unions are led by left-wing activists, creating an authoritarian and single minded environment.
There’s group thinking, censorship, «equality and inclusion» policies that actually discriminate normal people who don’t fit into certain (allegedly victimized but in fact privileged) collectives, virtue signalling, hypocresy, lack of individual accountability and meritocracy, etc. Any discrepancy is labeled as fascism or worse, and severely punished. And the result is that the interests of shareholders, customers and workers get left behind, putting the whole company in danger.
Go woke, go broke
Several companies have already paid the price of putting their woke ideology before their business: Disney, Gillette, Starbucks, Bud Light, Jaguar… Customers, shareholders and workers have left them woke and broke.
Trade unionists start waking up from the woke nightmare
But trade unions usually support these woke policies. They have betrayed those who they were supossed to represent: the workers.
Many workers are realizing that betrayal, and the union’s reputations are worse than ever. And within the unions, very few have the courage to speak up. Paul Embery, a traditional trade unionist, argues that this trend — especially as manifested through the adoption of structured diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies — risks dividing workers along identity lines rather than uniting them around shared class or job-related interests.
I find it refreshing and gives me hope that we can still find reasonable allies to rebuild a humane but reasonable workplace and labour relations.
Even more interesting than the speech are the reactions, that show a strong backlash.
I came across this speech by Rich Gilbert talking about smart people and why they are not always successful or happy.
I don’t think I’m extremely intelligent (certainly not dumb), maybe above average. But I feel that this video talks about my whole life: The stupidity of the education system, the difficulty to find people with whom to have good conversations, the dumbness of corporations, the choice of following my intellectual interests and balanced lifestyle instead instead of just earning money doing stupid things for stupid people…
Society is not made for/by intelligent people. Some of them learn to adapt and find their own way, most don’t, and end up misfit and frustrated. They don’t realize that it’s not their fault that the world is stupid, but their responsibility is to adapt to it.
If you sometimes feel frustrated with stupid organizations or people, watch this video and share it with someone you consider smart.
Now they’ve shared their research: «The leadership journey: insights into effective leadership progression. An international research report.»
It explores the perspectives of employees, leaders, organizations, and scientific literature about:
The direct impact of leaders on their people at each level
What leadership behaviors and attributes are important at each level
The leadership challenges leaders face as they transition to the next level and their degree of preparedness
How organizations can best prepare leaders to transition successfully and be effective in their future leadership role
These findings offer practical and actionable insights to help build effective leaders for strong leadership pipelines.
Summary
Here are some key ideas:
Only 38% of leaders feel extremely or very prepared to move to the next level of leadership.
Enabling and supporting leaders as they progress through your organization is critical when facing tight labor markets and increased reliance on leaders to deliver results. However, only 36% of leaders surveyed received formal leadership training or development when they moved to their current leadership level.
Leaders of all levels feel that mentoring programs and individual coaching were in the top three most useful development opportunities
Leaders who made employees feel more positive emotions were also rated as more effective leaders by employees. Yet one in five employees are still experiencing stress and frustration on a very frequent basis. Employees whose leaders display negative behaviors reported a decrease in their own work performance, engagement, and overall wellbeing.
This reinforces the need for leadership development to focus on a human-centered approach and places emphasis on emotional intelligence
Employees identified being supportive, providing constructive feedback, giving autonomy, and communicating well as leadership behaviors that most enhance their work performance.
80% of leaders felt they had to change their behavior to a moderate, large, or very large extent when they transitioned to their current leadership level.
First-level: Leading self vs leading others: An initial mindset change is required as individual contributors move into leadership – focusing on delegation and empowering others, appreciating individuals and communicating task expectations. First-level leaders also face complexity in managing their relationships with former peers and new colleagues.
Mid-level: Leading others vs leading leaders. Moving to mid-level leadership requires a further shift in mindset. There is a need to demonstrate and balance both strategic and operational capabilities and leaders at this level have many audiences to communicate with. They must recognize the need to move out of the detail and have a broader strategic focus.
Senior level: Leading the organization. At a senior leader level a final mindset shift is required, often recognized as the most difficult by organizations. Building and maintaining trust and providing clarity in communication are essential at this level. Leading the organization involves a step away from day-to-day management and a move towards big-picture strategic thinking, managing a greater breadth of relationships and empowering managers and teams.
However, there’s much more to learn. I encourage you to read the full report here.
