I think it somewhat depends on your definition of “stupid/clever”. I think I was thinking of it in terms of “self-aware/self-deceiving” or “knows-how-to-play-the-game/doesn’t-know”. The power talk that Venkat mentions in a later post, seems to be a key factor. The “clever/stupid” axis could be “knows-power-talk/doesn’t-know-power-talk”, in which case the Clueless are definitely “stupid” as are Losers.

I think everyone agrees that Losers are stupid-lazy, and that Clueless are hardworking. I just don’t see any way to label Clueless as clever. They only get promoted from the ranks of the Losers based on their willingness to work hard even as a Loser. In some ways this makes them even stupider than the Losers.

stupid-hardworking = No Gervais label (“a menace and must be removed immediately”)

stupid-lazy = Loser

clever-hardworking = Clueless

clever-lazy = Sociopath

Your new label Loser Sociopath doesn’t fit in the matrix at all, if you want it compatible with Venkat’s Gervais Principle theory.