Willfull ignorance is not bliss Some folks are ignorant on a subject because they simply are not capable of learning any more about it. For example, most people are not capable of fully understanding the consequences of relativity, or quantum mechanics. They are ignorant of the subject because it is beyond their capacity to learn.
Other folks are ignorant because they have not been exposed to the subject. Once exposed, they can apply themselves, and correct their ignorance, up to their level of intelligence or initiative.
Still others are ignorant by choice, and this is what I want to talk about.
I heard a radio personality the other day talking about how he never used a computer, and never would use a computer, and had no interest in learning to use one. "The old ways are good enough," he said, or words to that effect. What struck me was his pride in announcing to the world that he was computer illiterate.
Just think about it for a minute. Think about how ubiquitous these silicon marvels have become in our lives, not just in the PCs on our desks or laps, but in all kinds of applications from sales to manufacturing to inventory control and so on. Much of the increase in productivity that fueled the economic expansion of the 80s and 90s can be traced directly to the continuing development of the microprocessor. And here is this journalistic icon proudly proclaiming his ignorance of the whole thing. Now we could excuse him because of his advanced age. After all, old folks can't learn new things the way kids and younger folks do, right?
Wrong!
The decision to stop learning is just that, a decision, and is not an automatic consequence of aging. My grandfather learned to use a PC at well over 70 years of age, and used one to run all of his financial affairs. He chose to keep learning, to continue to use the best technology available, rather than to become obsolete, left behind by time and progress.
So, why choose to remain ignorant? Fear and pride are the first things that come to mind.
Learning something new is a form of change, and most people instinctively resist change. Let’s revisit our buddy Albert Einstein. He revolutionized physics with his theories of relativity, and faced strong resistance in getting his ideas accepted, particularly from the older physicists. Ironically, when his theories were used as one of the bases to develop quantum mechanics, he resisted this new application for his ideas, going so far as to create a ‘cosmological constant’ to explain away the quantum effect.
Our need for stability can blind us to reality.
Next, we come to pride. We all have things we believe to be true, beyond fact, beyond proof, beyond argument. When one of these beliefs is challenged, we often react irrationally, leaping to defend this belief, even if we have no real facts to back it up. We don’t want to admit that we were wrong, so we refuse to face the facts, preferring our own pet theories to reality.
And that brings me to my inspiration for this piece. A couple of days ago, I posted a series of poll results, chronicling the overwhelming support among Palestinians for Arafat’s Intifadah, including the violence and homicide bombings. I sent this information to Tony Andragna to illustrate that his belief that the majority of Palestinians are moderate is wrong.
Here are some excerpts of his response:
I have a problem with "polls" in general, because of "framing effects".
Asked whether I support an "uprising" against a "military occupation",
I would have to respond: Yes! I wouldn't object ot Palestinians having a
similar view. That position doesn't become immoderate until we cross
the line to murder - the distinction between suicide bombing a legitimatte
target and homocide bombing innocents. Has there been an attempt to
judge Palestinian opinion on that distinction, or does the survey merely ask
"do you support suicide bombings"? I'll have to look at the survey
(hopefully the questions are provided).
Tony goes on to say:
I'm especially hesitant to accept at face value the published
sentiments of Palestinians, and there are two reasons:
(a) the statements of the Palestinian leadership are inconsistent with action, and
(b) opinions expressed by a population under duress (you do know what happens to
collaborators) aren't the most reliable source of true sentiment.
Here is my biggest problem with Tony’s argument. He questions the veracity of the available evidence without offering any sort of proof it is illegitimate. He claims that all the media reports, audio, video, and print, coming out of the Middle East are biased against the Palestinians, but supplies no supporting evidence. He says he doesn’t trust the polls because the Palestinian people live in fear of Arafat, and are obviously lying, but he doesn’t provide any statements from Palestinians that this is the case. Are we to believe that Arafat so dominates the Palestinian people that not even one voice of protest can be raised? When dissidents in China can get their message out, and when Cuban protesters can make their voices heard, it is simply illogical to assume that the same could not be said for Palestinians.
Then Tony presents his assumption, again without a shred of evidence to back it up. No quotes, no communiqués, no demonstrations, no interviews, nothing. Tony provides us nothing to support his claims, but wants us to take them seriously anyway. His actions clearly fall into the category of irrationally defending a point of view that has no basis in fact. His rejection of the available evidence is an example of willful ignorance.
I’m hammering on this point, not to put down Tony, because we all have our blind spots, but to illustrate a very common human problem. We all fall into the trap of seeing the world as we think it should be. We craft simplified abstracts of the complex world that help us to understand what is going on. Unfortunately, those abstracts are often distorted by our own biases, and may not accurately reflect the real world. When this happens, any projections we make based on those abstracts will be in error. We have to guard against wishful thinking, and deal with the world as it is.
Posted by Rich at April 17, 2002 5:45 AM