The insecurity of ignorance

[sac beh]

This shows ignorance on the level of nations and its people. So who are the intelligent?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, so maybe I'm not answering you..

There's a difference between unintentional ignorance and intentional ignorance. And both of these are different from knowing something but not being able to do something about it.

Let's say 75% of a country's population is duped into voting for a law whose real intentions and effects are much different than the stated ones. After the law is passed, it is revealed through research, interviews with politicians, and the publication of the full text of the law, that what the people voted for is in fact not what this law is going to do.

We can't say that 75% of the population then is unintelligent. Some of those people may have not cared what the law was really about and only voted along party/political lines, convincing themselves then that the law was genuine (intentional ignorance). Others may have done their best to understand the law before voting, but due to the difficulty of obtaining accurate information about it, may have voted for it under false assumptions. Many of these would change their view after obtaining more accurate information about the law.

But there would still be a group of people who would support the law, despite more accurate information, due to political loyalties or a personal incapacity to alter deeply held assumptions based on new information. This is really where intelligence comes into play... not necessarily that the correct decision is always made, but more the ability to alter ones prior beliefs based on increasingly accurate information. Without this ability, we remain in the realm of competing personal opinions and beliefs.

 

[maryj315]

But there would still be a group of people who would support the law, despite more accurate information, due to political loyalties or a personal incapacity to alter deeply held assumptions based on new information. This is really where intelligence comes into play... not necessarily that the correct decision is always made, but more the ability to alter ones prior beliefs based on increasingly accurate information. Without this ability, we remain in the realm of competing personal opinions and beliefs.

Mj

 

[GeorgeSmiley]

When we were all born, we were born equal. I believe, don't know for sure. Some of us develop into thoughtfull people who want to understand where and who we and others are. Some of us turn into deluded fools. If the fools only affected themselves, so be it. But in this world everything we do affects everything else. If we leave the fools to act in ignorance, the world continues to decay. Surely we have to try rather than pulling up the hatches behind us. I can't in all good concience, just walk away and leave them to it. But at the same time, I have to accept that I don't have the skills to open their minds. I have no way to deal with these people, and can't restrict those I interact with to just those worth interacting with. Endlessly discussing the weather can become tiresome, and switching the subject ends in conflict. When dealing with public officials it is worse, as you need a certain outcome, yet when the ignorance stands in your way, how do you break through it. How can you tell anyone that they are wrong without them taking offence. I refuse to become someone who is willing to start manipulating people, as it is my belief that the correct response to a greater ability is a greater responsability. I could be wrong, perhaps I should be trying to take advantage of those lesser minds. Deceive them into agreeing with me, but how does that help te next person. Perhaps if they are not up to the task, they don't deserve a good result. Perhaps when I fail, I dont deserve a good result, perhaps survival of the fittest is a principle I should embrase, but it repulses me. I really do need a way to deal with these people, and I don't have one. I simply don't understand how some develop and some don't.

Probably the best thing Ive read since being here.

Smiley

 

[cashmunny]

To the OP...was the argument about a fact like: the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames? A basic law of physics fact? Or a fact like: public policy choice A is better/worse than public policy choice B? Or personal belief A is fact and personal belief B is fiction. Probably closer to the latter than it is to something that can be verified in a laboratory like the speed of light.

the problem is you are trying to apply the scientific method to something that someone else get's emotional about.

It will never work. You cannot win. Give up. This I know, for sure, 100% certain. It is a fact. You have proven it, in a real world laboratory.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

The only way around the problem is to be supremely skeptical of every aspect of reality. When ego associates too strongly with an idea we lose our objectivity. That is why almost everyone is an idiot; our consciousness is still ego-based.

Logic is overrated. Many people are of the mistaken understanding that a logical argument is necessarily correct. Not so. An argument can be logical within the framework of understanding of the arguer and still be incorrect. For who among us has a perfect understanding of reality?

 

[sac beh]

Logic is overrated. Many people are of the mistaken understanding that a logical argument is necessarily correct. Not so. An argument can be logical within the framework of understanding of the arguer and still be incorrect. For who among us has a perfect understanding of reality?

This is true, and it takes a certain mental ability of its own to realize this. Call it logic, reason, metacognition, its still an ability that humans posses and hone in various degrees.

http://io9.com/5640352/some-peoples-brains-are-better+suited-to-introspection-than-others

A specific area of the brain, located near the front of your head in the prefrontal cortex, is responsible for introspection. People with with more microstructures in this region are better at "metacognition," and possibly better decision-makers too.

In a paper published this week in Science, neuroscientist Stephen Fleming and a team of UK researchers explain that they asked test subjects to engage in a metacognitive exercise while their brains were being scanned. Thoughts qualify as metacognitive if they are thoughts about other thoughts, rather than responses to outside stimuli. In the case of this test, the researchers used a commonly-accepted introspection test. Subjects were asked to do a visual perception test (identifying and rotating objects), and then asked to evaluate whether they performed well on the visual test. The self-evaluation part is what qualifies as metacognitive: You're analyzing your own analysis of something from the outside world.

Fleming and colleagues found that people with more gray and white matter microstructures in a particular area of the prefrontal cortex tended to be more introspective, which is to say, better at evaluating their own performance on the visual test. People who are more introspective in this way tend to be better decision-makers. Their confidence levels tend to match the accuracy of their perceptions..

 

[GMT]

Right now I'm trying to stay out of the tokers den, but I will answer the specific question posed to me. The arguement was about, and forgive the poor spelling on this one, a course in raikee. The art of healing by laying hands on someone, or as I called it, "the purchase of magic powers".

 

[sac beh]

Why "Scientific Consensus" Fails to Persuade

Why "Scientific Consensus" Fails to Persuade

People pick and choose their science and scientific experts based on other preexisting beliefs.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=117697&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click

It’s fascinating: according to new work by Dan Kahan of Yale, Hank Jenkins-Smith of the University of Oklahoma, and Donald Braman of George Washington, people think that scientific consensus aligns with their values. In other words, they think scientists are credible experts if they believe what they believe–even when they believe completely absurd things (i.e., that global warming isn’t happening).

From a summary of the work:

Subjects were much more likely to see a scientist with elite credentials as an “expert” when he or she took a position that matched the subjects’ own cultural values on risks of nuclear waste disposal and laws permitting citizens to carry concealed guns in public.

“These are all matters,” Kahan said, “on which the National Academy of Sciences has issued ‘expert consensus’ reports.” Using the reports as a benchmark,” Kahan explained that “no cultural group in our study was more likely than any other to be ‘getting it right’,” i.e. correctly identifying scientific consensus on these issues. They were all just as likely to report that ‘most’ scientists favor the position rejected by the National Academy of Sciences expert consensus report if the report reached a conclusion contrary to their own cultural predispositions.”

No wonder climate deniers and anti-evolutionists put out those long, misleading lists of all the scientists who allegedly support their views.

This study also underscores a critically important role for the science journalist (a career that’s now dying, as we just wrote in the latest Best American Science Writing 2010). Science journalists are ideally equipped to explain to the public where scientific consensus actually lies, as opposed to where it is falsely claimed to lie.

We survey the work of the National Academies and other outlets. We interview the experts. We often read the studies ourselves. And thus we serve as a needed antidote to this confirmation bias with regard to where expertise lies.

And there are fewer and fewer of us.

 

[el dub]

Best way you can improve this world, imo, is to change/improve your own behavior instead of wanting to change other's thoughts or beliefs.

While the op might be one smart fellow, ego and arrogance do little for the growth of a collective, imo. That combo, rather, is just one more hurdle for an individual to overcome.

lw

 

[sac beh]

Best way you can improve this world, imo, is to change/improve your own behavior instead of wanting to change other's thoughts or beliefs.

While the op might be one smart fellow, ego and arrogance do little for the growth of a collective, imo. That combo, rather, is just one more hurdle for an individual to overcome.

lw

If a friend told you he was going to run off the edge of cliff based on the fantasy that he could fly, you wouldn't be interested in changing his beliefs at all? Would you consider yourself arrogant for trying to instruct him?

 

[sac beh]

Then what if your friend was teaching others about the art of flying and there is now a collective of people under the sway of the fantasy. Would it be arrogant to step in and demonstrate to them why, despite their fantasy, they will probably die if they run off the cliff?

 

[el dub]

I really hope you can see the difference between helping a person in physical danger and desiring to change another's random opinion or personal belief.

lw

 

[HempKat]

You are right about both it being an issue of control and needing to lower my expectations, but I have found that rising above pettyness leaves only the weather to talk about without falling out. Also, if you saw a friend buying a car for roughly twice the price it was worth, wouldn't you want to warn them? How about if you knew the car to be unroadworthy? Sometimes it is a duty to point out the failings of others, and sometimes it is arrogance. I try to fullffill the first and avoid the second, and sometimes I fail on both.

On the other hand, we use maths to represent nature, that is different from maths being a part of nature. It is a concept that follows laws, and these laws we must learn to understand maths. However these laws are man made not natural. For example, a circle has 360degrees, why, not because nature does, but because a man somewhere decided upon it. I understand that the laws of maths aren't theory but laws, however to then say that nature follows the same laws, is I feel a little misleading. For example, if you have 1 electron, and add another, how many electrons do you have? Well, sometimes 0, because of quantum mechanics.

I know nothing about islam.

All you can do is make a legitimate attempt to pass on whatever "facts" you want to pass on to someone. There is no guarenteed way to insure the person you present them to will recieve them the way you want them to.

It's like trying to take a program written for a MAC and run it in a PC, you can't until it first passes thru some other program that can convert it into a format the PC can digest. That's what religion, science and education are, 3rd party programs for transmitting organic data from one being to the next. Alas not always is the translation perfect sometimes you need multiple 3rd party programs to cover things that don't tanslate well with another program. If religion can't explain it maybe science can? Then there's the exceptions those being the things that just can't be translated properly no matter what program you use. For these times all one can do is try what they know and let the result be whatever it will be even if it's unsatisfactory.

There is no way to guarentee perfect understanding when networking thought. If there was then the world would be filled with perfect beings that all have a perfect understanding of the universe and everything in it.

 

[sac beh]

I really hope you can see the difference between helping a person in physical danger and desiring to change another's random opinion or personal belief.

lw

So is that a yes? You would step in and try to change their beliefs?

Maybe you could explain to me the different between the fantasy of flying and random opinion or personal belief. Are you saying that clear and present physical danger is the only situation in which one's personal beliefs should be opened to the scrutiny of others?

 

[GMT]

Best way you can improve this world, imo, is to change/improve your own behavior instead of wanting to change other's thoughts or beliefs.

While the op might be one smart fellow, ego and arrogance do little for the growth of a collective, imo. That combo, rather, is just one more hurdle for an individual to overcome.

lw

Thankyou, both for the compliment and for justifying the thread title.
What some percieve to be ego and arrogance, is the result of being secure in ones own thought processes. When you rely on proven facts, rather than the most popular thoughts of the day, you can be relatively certain about what you say. Those who rely on popular thought patterns to determine their own, are constantly looking for reinforcement on those patterns, and that's why when they run into someone who doesn't share them, they feel the need to attack that person on a personal level rather than arguing the basis of those beliefs. If the people who disagreed with those who hold views based upon facts, would argue based on facts, then a discussion could take place, but when they are not in posession of any relevant facts, they feel insecure about their own position, and resort to an attempt to insult personally, as if to redress the balance. Arrogance and ego are popular complaints made by those who do not hold anything in their arsonal to argue with other than insults. Therefore the title, the insecurity of ignorance.

 

[el dub]

sac beh: I'm not really interested in the strawman arguments you have been presenting.

Using the example above, one has every right to tell one's friend that he/she paid too much for a car, but one has no right to dictate or have any expectations concerning the response from said friend, imo.

I smell a control freak.

lw

 

[GMT]

sac beh: I'm not really interested in the strawman arguments you have been presenting.

Using the example above, one has every right to tell one's friend that he/she paid too much for a car, but one has no right to dictate or have any expectations concerning the response from said friend, imo.

I smell a control freak.

lw

now hold on, you can't have it both ways, did you read the thread? You can't say that you have the right to tell someone they paid too much for a car, but not that they paid too much for the magical powers they bought.

 

[sac beh]

sac beh: I'm not really interested in the strawman arguments you have been presenting.

Using the example above, one has every right to tell one's friend that he/she paid too much for a car, but one has no right to dictate or have any expectations concerning the response from said friend, imo.

I smell a control freak.

lw

Notice you're the only one resorting to personal attacks to keep in the discussion. I'm just asking instructive questions to get a better idea of what you meant with your original comments. But you don't believe in other people being able to request that you explain or support your views, so you really don't want a discussion.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

sac beh: I'm not really interested in the strawman arguments you have been presenting.

Using the example above, one has every right to tell one's friend that he/she paid too much for a car, but one has no right to dictate or have any expectations concerning the response from said friend, imo.

I smell a control freak.

lw

A more accurate example might be: one has every right to tell one's friend that the ford pinto he/she bought is a death trap, and one would have every right to present the statistical and mechanical data to prove it, and one has every right to dictate or have expectations concerning the response from said friend, due to the fact that they are driving a car which might, under the right (wrong) circumstances, burst into flames and harm you or another innocent motorist or passenger or pedistrian...

No actual imminent danger, but a real potential consequence.

 

[ibjamming]

If a friend told you he was going to run off the edge of cliff based on the fantasy that he could fly, you wouldn't be interested in changing his beliefs at all? Would you consider yourself arrogant for trying to instruct him?

So is that a yes? You would step in and try to change their beliefs?

Maybe you could explain to me the different between the fantasy of flying and random opinion or personal belief. Are you saying that clear and present physical danger is the only situation in which one's personal beliefs should be opened to the scrutiny of others?

How can you be so right here...and so wrong in the "climate change" thread???

We ALL have a lot of beliefs that aren't correct...because we're lied to daily...all day...by professionals. They're called marketers.

Unfortunately, when you call someone on their false belief...they sometimes get violent. The falasy of pre existing belief...or something like that. Like you said, people LOVE to quote scientists and experts that agree...but loath those who don't. We're funny little animals...

Thankyou, both for the compliment and for justifying the thread title.
What some percieve to be ego and arrogance, is the result of being secure in ones own thought processes. When you rely on proven facts, rather than the most popular thoughts of the day, you can be relatively certain about what you say. Those who rely on popular thought patterns to determine their own, are constantly looking for reinforcement on those patterns, and that's why when they run into someone who doesn't share them, they feel the need to attack that person on a personal level rather than arguing the basis of those beliefs. If the people who disagreed with those who hold views based upon facts, would argue based on facts, then a discussion could take place, but when they are not in posession of any relevant facts, they feel insecure about their own position, and resort to an attempt to insult personally, as if to redress the balance. Arrogance and ego are popular complaints made by those who do not hold anything in their arsonal to argue with other than insults. Therefore the title, the insecurity of ignorance.

I try to be like this...open minded in EVERYTHING. Unfortunately, there are things we can't openly discuss, so our ignorance marches on.