Ask A Genius 1233: What counts as doofus traps for smart people?
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/31
Rick Rosner: I can’t recall why exactly, but someone on Twitter (I don’t remember their name) once gave a short talk where they mentioned that everyone they know with an IQ over 180 has trouble avoiding “doofus traps.” I love that term. It stings a bit because I’ve fallen into plenty myself—I used to call them “cul-de-sacs,” but “doofus trap” feels more accurate. Then I started thinking: what isn’t a doofus trap? Certainly, for example, suing Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? might qualify as one.
I’ve wasted so much time on that, which is a classic doofus trap. Catching IDs in bars? Doofus trap. Look at William Sidis—collecting streetcar transfers might have been a doofus trap depending on how much time and energy he spent on it. Me collecting micromosaics? Doofus trap. Chess? Doofus trap. (Not that I play it, but plenty of smart people do.)
You could argue that anything that doesn’t turn you into a real estate agent earning millions of dollars a year by selling multimillion-dollar properties is a doofus trap. Doofus traps, in a sense, exist to prevent people with IQs over 180 from disrupting everything, including the real estate field—an industry stereotypically not populated by “brilliant” people. But if truly brilliant minds entered the field, they might completely upend it. Hence, doofus traps.
But I don’t know. I waste endless hours working out, and on the one hand, it might make me healthier. On the other hand, is it a doofus trap? Is trying to be a good spouse a doofus trap? In the end, we all die, and nothing saves us from that. What do you think? Is everything a doofus trap—or at least a potentialdoofus trap?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It seems like everything could be a potential doofus trap. There are tried-and-true ways of functioning in a particular society, at a particular time, in a particular culture—yet there are always plenty of ways to do those same things in a doofus-like manner.
Rosner: Look at Elon Musk. Based on recent stock valuations, his net worth is estimated several hundred billion dollars, making him one of the wealthiest people on the planet. Clearly, he hasn’t fallen into too many doofus traps; he’s used his time quite efficiently. But after accruing, say, your first $10 billion, isn’t chasing more money just another doofus trap? It led him, for example, to make controversial decisions like buying Twitter (now X) and making polarizing changes to the platform. Maybe that’s a doofus trap in itself.
Then there’s Jeff Bezos, worth around the same amount, who founded Amazon. He’s obviously brilliant and a great businessman. But isn’t having more than $20 billion itself a doofus trap? Plus, he divorced his wife, MacKenzie Scott, who walked away with several billion. He later began a relationship with Lauren Sánchez, who resembles MacKenzie to some extent. So is replacing your spouse with someone similar, but arguably “hotter,” a doofus trap? Bezos has also reportedly spent $500 million on a mega-yacht. Maybe that’s just another flavor of doofus trap.
In the end, it seems like almost everything has the potential to be a doofus trap, just in different guises.
Though maybe less so because not many people can pull off accumulating that kind of wealth. Am I right? I don’t know.
Jacobsen: That’s it for now, man. But certainly, I don’t know what you’d want to call it. There are a lot of high-end and low-end doofus traps by that metric.
And the rich ones just impact more people, so they’d be considered high-end, in a way, in terms of the utility value—just because of their high impact.
Rosner: So, there are a lot of rich tech bros, and probably not-so-rich tech bros, who are working on extending their lifespans by as many years as possible. If it doesn’t work out, it’s for sure a doofus trap. If it does work out, doofus trap or not, does getting to— I’d argue that if you figure out longevity hacks that buy you an extra 20 years of healthy life, it’s not a doofus trap.
Or is it just one more weird thing? Like, okay, so, you get to live to 107. And until 102, you look like you’re less than 80 years old because of your hacks. Is that a worthwhile use of your time and attention? Or one more weird doofus trap? Is that the question?
Jacobsen: Yeah. Currently a doofus trap—but in 15 years? Well, depending on the country you’re in, the money you have, and the scale of the research, maybe it’s an increasingly scaled-up reduction in doofus levels.
Rosner: Alright. Is that enough of that?
Jacobsen: Yeah.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 