Sample ThreeDirections：You are going to read a text about stupidity for dummies， followed by a list of examples. Choose the best example from the list AF for each numbered subheading （5155）。 There is one extra example which you do not need to use. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. （10 points）Sternberg， an expert in intelligence testing， contends that， contrary to public belief， stupidity is not the opposite of smartness. He points out that many of the singularly idiotic acts that come to public attention are the work of people who are， in fact， highly intelligent. He argues instead that stupidity is more properly viewed as the opposite of wisdom-which he sees as the ability to apply knowledge to achieve a common good. His “imbalance theory of foolishness” suggests that there are aspects of life as a smart person that actually foster stupidity. Which is to say， it sometimes takes a really smart person to do something truly stupid. Sternberg recently took the time to answer some of our stupid questions.（51）What attracted you to the study of stupidity？The roots of the book were in my wondering about what's up with people who have very high intelligence in the traditional sense， but seem to be out to lunch in another sense.（52）The difference between stupidity， foolishness， dumbness and， say， plain boneheadedness：The book is really about foolishness， which is the opposite of wisdom. There are many smart people who are unwise.（53）Do you see stupidity as an objective behavior or ，as one of your contributors does， a subjective judgment that reflects more on the observer？Stupidity is not in the behavior， nor in the eyes of the observer. It is in the interaction between the person and the situation. Different kinds of situations elicit different behavior from people.（54）“The best way to avoid stupidity is not to be afraid of looking stupid”People often fail to learn because they do not want to look stupid. As a result， they make or repeat mistakes they could have avoided.（55）Of course， some would suggest that certain stupid behaviors are categorizable as something else. Some would say philandering or shoplifting， for example， are products of something other than stupidity.I think it is a combination of the fallacies I mentioned： Egocentrism， omniscience， omnipotence and invulnerability. Many smart people are philanderers.Everyone has weaknesses. The issue in terms of the book is what they do about these weaknesses—whether they find ways to make up for them or whether they allow them to destroy their lives.

A.The foolish part is in the belief that one need only consider one's own feelings about the matter and not the feelings of others， especially the partner （egocentrism）； that it is not okay for others but that one knows all about these things so it is all right for oneself （omniscience）； that one can basically do whatever one wants because of who one is （omnipotence）； and that， unlike others suckers， one never will get caught （invulnerability）。

B.How did Richard Nixon ever get involved in Watergate and the subsequent coverup？ What was Bill Clinton thinking when he kept repeating the same mistakes in his personal life？ More recently， how did the intelligent people who ran Enron think they would get away with a shell game？ There are lots of examples. And the truth is， some of them are in my own life， too. None of us is immune.

C.For example， Clinton was very smart in most domains of his life， but in some kinds of interpersonal situations with women， he appears not to have been. The Enron bloodsuckers may have been perfectly fine in their home lives， but given the chance to rip off a corporation， they went for it. Problem is， we may see how sensibly we behave， on average， so that we are not alert for the kinds of situations where we act foolishly.

D.Unfortunately， no. It usually takes others to point it out to us. Or， looking back， we often marvel at how we could have been oblivious to our stupidity. But the problem is that smart people often use their intelligence to find ways to immunize themselves or isolate themselves from feedback. For example， they may hire toadies who just tell them what they want to hear.

E.C.For example， Clinton was very smart in most domains of his life， but in some kinds of interpersonal situations with women， he appears not to have been. The Enron bloodsuckers may have been perfectly fine in their home lives， but given the chance to rip off a corporation， they went for it. Problem is， we may see how sensibly we behave， on average， so that we are not alert for the kinds of situations where we act foolishly.D.Unfortunately， no. It usually takes others to point it out to us. Or， looking back， we often marvel at how we could have been oblivious to our stupidity. But the problem is that smart people often use their intelligence to find ways to immunize themselves or isolate themselves from feedback. For example， they may hire toadies who just tell them what they want to hear.E.Also， sometimes when they make mistakes， people try to cover them up so as not to appear to have been stupid and then look even stupider when the coverup comes to light. That， of course， is what happened to Nixon and Clinton， and to many， many others， such as currency traders who have tried to cover up losses or high-level executives at software companies who have tried to cover up improprieties.

F.The book is not about stupidity in the classical sense， which is usually thought of as a very low IQ. So I would distinguish the “mental retardation” kind of stupidity from the kind of foolishness this book discusses. The problem is that smart people often do not realize how susceptible they are to being foolish， as any number of world leaders have gone out of their way to show.A. B. C. D. E. F.