Stupidity is a very specific cognitive failing. Crudely put, it occurs when you don’t have the right conceptual tools for the job. The result is an inability to make sense of what is happening and a resulting tendency to force phenomena into crude, distorting pigeonholes.
This is easiest to introduce with a tragic case. British high command during the First World War frequently understood trench warfare using concepts and strategies from the cavalry battles of their youth. As one of Field Marshal Douglas Haig’s subordinates later remarked, they thought of the trenches as ‘mobile operations at the halt’: i.e., as fluid battle lines with the simple caveat that nothing in fact budged for years. Unsurprisingly, this did not serve them well in formulating a strategy: they were hampered, beyond the shortage of material resources, by a kind of ‘conceptual obsolescence’, a failure to update their cognitive tools to fit the task in hand. In at least some cases, intelligence actively abets stupidity by allowing pernicious rationalisation.
Stupidity will often arise in cases like this, when an outdated conceptual framework is forced into service, mangling the user’s grip on some new phenomenon. It is important to distinguish this from mere error. We make mistakes for all kinds of reasons. Stupidity is rather one specific and stubborn cause of error. Historically, philosophers have worried a great deal about the irrationality of not taking the available means to achieve goals: Tom wants to get fit, yet his running shoes are quietly gathering dust. The stock solution to Tom’s quandary is simple willpower. Stupidity is very different from this. It is rather a lack of the necessary means, a lack of the necessary intellectual equipment. Combatting it will typically require not brute willpower but the construction of a new way of seeing our self and our world. Such stupidity is perfectly compatible with intelligence: Haig was by any standard a smart man.
Which of the following statements BEST summarizes the author's view on stupidity?
- Comprehending a problem by applying our existing world view is stupidity
- The inability to avoid forcing our current views on a new situation is stupidity
- Pushing our extant solution to fix an alien problem is stupidity
- The novelty of the problem, in relation to our cognitive capacity, is the cause of stupidity
- The inability to comprehend what is happening around us is stupidity
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
To determine which statement best summarizes the author's view on stupidity, we need to closely analyze the passage given. Here is a step-by-step breakdown:
- Understanding the Passage:
- Stupidity is described as a "specific cognitive failing" where outdated conceptual tools prevent one from understanding new phenomena.
- The British high command during WWI is cited as an example, where outdated military strategies were applied to trench warfare.
- This led to "conceptual obsolescence," where cognitive tools were not updated, causing failure in strategy formulation.
- Intelligence does not necessarily prevent stupidity, as seen in the example given with Field Marshal Douglas Haig.
- Options Analysis:
- Option 1: "Comprehending a problem by applying our existing world view is stupidity."
This option suggests applying existing views to understand a problem is stupidity. However, the passage highlights applying outdated frameworks, not the mere act of applying existing views. - Option 2: "The inability to avoid forcing our current views on a new situation is stupidity."
This refers to an inability to refrain from using current perspectives. The passage emphasizes using outdated cognitive tools rather than current ones. - Option 3: "Pushing our extant solution to fix an alien problem is stupidity."
The passage describes using outdated frameworks inappropriately for new problems, which aligns with this option's description. It fits the example of British command applying old strategies to trench warfare. - Option 4: "The novelty of the problem, in relation to our cognitive capacity, is the cause of stupidity."
While the passage deals with new problems, it attributes stupidity more to the failure of updating tools rather than sheer novelty. - Option 5: "The inability to comprehend what is happening around us is stupidity."
This generally aligns with the idea of misunderstanding, but it's more about the lack of suitable cognitive tools than plain incomprehension.
- Option 1: "Comprehending a problem by applying our existing world view is stupidity."
- Conclusion:
- Option 3, "Pushing our extant solution to fix an alien problem is stupidity," best captures the essence of the passage. It highlights the failure of applying obsolete solutions to new problems, which aligns closely with the author's narrative and the example provided.
Approach Solution -2
Step 1: Understanding the author’s idea of stupidity
The passage explains that stupidity is not due to lack of intelligence. Instead, it happens when smart people try to use old solutions or old frameworks for entirely new and unfamiliar problems.
Step 2: Evaluating the options
- Option 1: Incorrect – This is too broad. Simply “comprehending a problem using our worldview” is not stupidity, it becomes stupidity only when mismatched solutions are forced.
- Option 2: Close, but incomplete – It points to the forcing of old views, but the author is more specific: the forcing of extant solutions onto alien problems.
- Option 3: Correct – This directly captures the author’s essence: stupidity is applying old answers to new problems where they don’t fit.
- Option 4: Incorrect – The novelty of a problem itself doesn’t cause stupidity; it is our wrong reaction (misapplying old solutions) that does.
- Option 5: Incorrect – Inability to comprehend is ignorance, not the author’s definition of stupidity.
Step 3: Final Answer
Therefore, the best summary is:
\[ \boxed{\text{Stupidity is pushing our extant solution to fix an alien problem.}} \]
Which of the following statements BEST explains why stupidity for a smart person is “perfectly compatible with intelligence”?
- Intelligence is poorly defined, and is usually a perception, making it compatible with stupidity.
- Intelligence, when perceived through past successes, makes any rationalization of a new phenomenon acceptable.
- Past successes make us believe that we are intelligent and capable of explaining any new phenomenon.
- A new phenomenon creates fear, rushing intelligent people to explain it to put others at ease.
- Intelligent people are scared to admit their lack of knowledge, and therefore, try to explain everything including things they do not understand.
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
To determine why stupidity for a smart person is "perfectly compatible with intelligence," we need to analyze the given passage and options carefully.
- The passage discusses how stupidity arises when there is a lack of appropriate "conceptual tools" to understand new phenomena. This deficiency results in forced and often incorrect rationalizations.
- The British high command during WWI is given as an example, where reliance on outdated strategies (from cavalry warfare) demonstrated a kind of "conceptual obsolescence" or "outdated conceptual framework."
- The crucial point is that intelligence allows for "pernicious rationalization," meaning intelligent individuals might use their intelligence to create erroneous justifications for phenomena they do not fully understand.
- Examining the options:
- The option that mentions "intelligence is poorly defined" does not align well with the passage’s focus on rationalization and outdated frameworks.
- The option stating that "intelligence, when perceived through past successes, makes any rationalization of a new phenomenon acceptable" directly connects with using past achievements to justify current misunderstandings. However, it emphasizes rationalization rather than the causal impact of past success.
- "Past successes make us believe that we are intelligent and capable of explaining any new phenomenon" aligns with the idea that previous accomplishments reinforce overconfidence, making one susceptible to rationalizing wrong explanations—linking well with the given example (British command relying on past training).
- The options highlighting fear of new phenomena or admitting lack of knowledge do not specifically connect with the passage’s emphasis on conceptual framework and rationalization.
- Thus, the best explanation for why stupidity and intelligence are compatible as per the passage is: Past successes make us believe that we are intelligent and capable of explaining any new phenomenon.
This understanding is supported by the example of Field Marshal Douglas Haig in the passage, demonstrating how perceived intelligence from past successes can be misleading when faced with new, unrecognized challenges.
Approach Solution -2
Step 1: Understanding the context
The passage explains that even smart people can act stupidly. This is not because they lack intelligence, but because intelligence itself can sometimes mislead them. Past achievements reinforce the belief that they can explain anything, even things outside their expertise.
Step 2: Eliminating weaker options
- Option 1 talks about intelligence being poorly defined, but that does not capture the deeper reasoning.
- Option 2 is close, but it emphasizes "any rationalization acceptable" rather than the self-belief driven by past successes.
- Option 4 and 5 focus on fear and denial, but the passage highlights overconfidence from past success, not fear.
Step 3: Why Option 3 is correct
Option (C) directly matches the reasoning — smart people rely on their past victories in understanding problems. This history convinces them that they can explain any new phenomenon, which often leads to stupid mistakes despite intelligence.
Final Answer:
\[ \boxed{\text{Past successes make us believe that we are intelligent and capable of explaining any new phenomenon.}} \]
Based on the passage, which of the following can BEST help a leader avoid stupidity?
- Be ready to discuss with everyone before taking a decision
- Be cautious in taking a decision until the future unfolds
- Being aware that our current answers are only applicable to the current context
- Being aware that we are short of the required resources
- Being aware that we must handle future with a different cognitive tool
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
The question requires us to determine which option can best help a leader avoid stupidity based on understanding the given passage. Let's break down the passage and evaluate the given options.
The passage discusses how stupidity arises when a person lacks the right conceptual tools for understanding a situation, leading to inappropriate decision-making. Stupidity, in this context, is described as a cognitive failing distinct from mere error. To avoid this, one must update their conceptual framework to fit the evolving context.
- The option "Be ready to discuss with everyone before taking a decision" hints at collaborative decision-making but does not address updating conceptual tools, which is central to the argument in the passage.
- The option "Be cautious in taking a decision until the future unfolds" suggests postponing decisions rather than updating one's conceptual framework, and therefore doesn't align with the passage's solution to avoid stupidity.
- The option "Being aware that our current answers are only applicable to the current context" directly relates to the concept of updating one's conceptual tools and frameworks to the present situation, which is the main theme of the passage.
- The option "Being aware that we are short of the required resources" focuses on resource availability, which is acknowledged but not central to the specific cognitive failing discussed in the passage.
- The option "Being aware that we must handle future with a different cognitive tool" is related but suggests only future consideration rather than the present application context, as emphasized in the correct option.
The passage emphasizes the importance of updating one's intellectual framework to avoid the cognitive trap of applying outdated concepts to new situations. Therefore, the most appropriate answer is "Being aware that our current answers are only applicable to the current context". This awareness allows a leader to adapt their thinking and decision-making to fit the specific circumstances, avoiding the 'conceptual obsolescence' highlighted in the passage.
In conclusion, the correct answer is consistent with the passage's recommendation to update cognitive tools, ensuring that the understanding aligns with the current context.
Approach Solution -2
Step 1: Understanding the passage
The passage distinguishes between present knowledge and future uncertainty. It emphasizes that answers or solutions derived today are framed only within the current context.
Step 2: Why other options are incorrect
- Option 1: Merely discussing with everyone does not guarantee wisdom.
- Option 2: Waiting until the future unfolds avoids decisions altogether, which is impractical.
- Option 4: Awareness of resource shortage is important, but it does not directly prevent "stupidity".
- Option 5: Handling future with different tools is a vague statement, less precise than option 3.
Step 3: Why Option (C) is correct
The key idea is humility in decision-making: leaders must recognize that what seems like a solution today may not apply tomorrow. This awareness helps avoid rigid thinking and prevents "stupid" mistakes.
Final Answer:
\[ \boxed{\text{Being aware that our current answers are only applicable to the current context}} \]
Top Questions on Reading Comprehension
- Shown below are letters ‘e’ taken from four popular logos, arranged in a sequence. Which of the options is the correct sequence?
- UCEED - 2026
- English Language Comprehension
- Reading Comprehension
- Shown below are four options, each showing consecutive frames representing the movement of a pendulum of an old-style wall clock for an animation movie. Which is the correct option?
- UCEED - 2026
- English Language Comprehension
- Reading Comprehension
- Acrucial moderating factor in how people experience comparisons is self-esteem. Individuals with high self-esteem are more likely to interpret upward comparison as informative rather than threatening. They are more resilient in the face of others’ success and more likely to believe they can reach their own goals. In contrast, people with low self-esteem are more prone to interpret comparison as judgment, reinforcing negative self-views and triggering feelings of inadequacy.
This dynamic creates a self-reinforcing loop. People with high self-esteem are less vulnerable to upward comparison, which intensifies those doubts. Those with a secure sense of self are more likely to use comparison as a learning tool. The same external stimulus—a colleague’s achievements, a friend’s popularity—can have radically different effects depending on internal stability.
Self-esteem also influences how people choose their comparison targets. Research has found that individuals often engage in “selective comparison,” seeking out those who confirm their existing beliefs about themselves. This can become a subtle form of self-sabotage. Someone who feels unworthy may subconsciously seek out targets that reinforce that sense, perpetuating a narrative of inferiority. One of the most promising antidotes to social comparison is temporal comparison—evaluating oneself not against others, but against one’s own past. This method has been shown to increase motivation and satisfaction, especially when individuals can see concrete progress. Temporal comparison activates the same reward circuits as social comparison but avoids the threat systems associated with social ranking. It also reinforces agency: individuals focus on what they can control and improve rather than what others control. In therapeutic and coaching settings, temporal comparison is used to help clients build self-efficacy and track growth over time.
Moreover, people who focus on self-improvement rather than social dominance are less likely to fall into cycles of envy or self-pity. They can still use others as inspiration, but they do so without attaching their self-worth to the outcome. This is not to say they never compare—but that they focus on learning, rather than judgment. The most skilful approach to comparison may lie in eliminating it, but in reframing it as feedback. When we interpret comparison as information rather than a verdict, we can ask, “What can I learn from this?” This shift turns comparison into a growth tool. Teachers mentor their students, not as rivals. Psychologists emphasize that the key variable here is mindset.
A fixed mindset sees comparison as a threat. If someone else is better, it means we are worse. A growth mindset sees comparison as a map. If someone else has reached a certain level, it means the path exists. This reframing is not just a cognitive trick. It changes the emotional tone of comparison, making it more likely to inspire than to wound. Reframing also requires emotional regulation—the ability to notice an initial pang of envy or shame without reacting impulsively. With practice, individuals can learn to pause, reflect, and reinterpret their emotional responses. Over time, this builds resilience and self-trust, allowing comparison to become a learning tool rather than a cage.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
Questions Asked in XAT exam
- An artificial swimming pool is circular and water is flowing clockwise at a speed of 3 km/hr. Two swimmers Ayub and Rana start from diametrically opposite points, Ayub in the anticlockwise direction and Rana in the clockwise direction. They first meet at a point such that Ayub has covered 60 m by that time. Their second meeting point is such that Rana has covered another 180 m after the first meeting point. If the speed of Rana in still water is 3 km/hr, find the time taken by Ayub to cover one full circle in the clockwise direction.
- XAT - 2026
- Time and Work
- Arrange the following generations from the oldest to the youngest:
1. Generation X
2. Silent Generation
3. Generation Alpha
4. Baby Boomers
5. Millennials
- XAT - 2026
- Current Affairs
- Read the following scenario and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Brijbhushan, a microfinancier, lends money at the rate of Rs.10 per square meter to small farmers at a village. He charges an annual interest rate of 10%. All the farming plots in that village are rectangular, with areas varying between a minimum of 1000 square meters and a maximum of 10,000 square meters.
This year, Brijbhushan has lent money only to five farmers: Aditya, Binod, Chhuttan, Dabloo and Govind. The perimeter of Chhuttan’s plot is 250 meters, with the length and width being at a ratio of 4:1. Aditya’s plot has an area three times the area of Govind’s plot. The area of Aditya’s plot is also the average of the areas of Govind’s plot and Dabloo’s plot. The plots belonging to Aditya, Binod and Dabloo are of the same width, but of different lengths. Moreover, the length of Binod’s plot is the sum of the lengths of Aditya’s plot and Dabloo’s plot.- XAT - 2026
- Mensuration
Light Chemicals is an industrial paint supplier with presence in three locations: Mumbai, Hyderabad and Bengaluru. The sunburst chart below shows the distribution of the number of employees of different departments of Light Chemicals. There are four departments: Finance, IT, HR and Sales. The employees are deployed in four ranks: junior, mid, senior and executive. The chart shows four levels: location, department, rank and gender (M: male, F: female). At every level, the number of employees at a location/department/rank/gender are proportional to the corresponding area of the region represented in the chart.
Due to some issues with the software, the data on junior female employees have gone missing. Notice that there are junior female employees in Mumbai HR, Sales and IT departments, Hyderabad HR department, and Bengaluru IT and Finance departments. The corresponding missing numbers are marked u, v, w, x, y and z in the diagram, respectively.
It is also known that:
a) Light Chemicals has a total of 210 junior employees.
b) Light Chemicals has a total of 146 employees in the IT department.
c) Light Chemicals has a total of 777 employees in the Hyderabad office.
d) In the Mumbai office, the number of female employees is 55.
- XAT - 2026
- Pie Charts
An investment company, Win Lose, recruit's employees to trade in the share market. For newcomers, they have a one-year probation period. During this period, the employees are given Rs. 1 lakh per month to invest the way they see fit. They are evaluated at the end of every month, using the following criteria:
1. If the total loss in any span of three consecutive months exceeds Rs. 20,000, their services are terminated at the end of that 3-month period,
2. If the total loss in any span of six consecutive months exceeds Rs. 10,000, their services are terminated at the end of that 6-month period.
Further, at the end of the 12-month probation period, if there are losses on their overall investment, their services are terminated.
Ratan, Shri, Tamal and Upanshu started working for Win Lose in January. Ratan was terminated after 4 months, Shri was terminated after 7 months, Tamal was terminated after 10 months, while Upanshu was not terminated even after 12 months. The table below, partially, lists their monthly profits (in Rs. ‘000’) over the 12-month period, where x, y and z are masked information.
Note:
• A negative profit value indicates a loss.
• The value in any cell is an integer.
Illustration: As Upanshu is continuing after March, that means his total profit during January-March (2z +2z +0) ≥
Rs.20,000. Similarly, as he is continuing after June, his total profit during January − June ≥
Rs.10,000, as well as his total profit during April-June ≥ Rs.10,000.
- XAT - 2026
- Logical and Analytical Reasoning Skills