You Should Know
There's a ridiculous (and ridiculously common) notion that each and every one of us should be knowledgeable about every subject. The thinking goes: "If our government deals with it, then voters should make themselves aware."
I'm sure that was a fine sentiment when government was limited and local. It made even more sense before military, economic and ideological influences did not regularly span the entire globe.
But it is foolish to expect anyone to have a deep, informed opinion on every subject. That is doubly true in modern America. Internet alone has already complicated society to an absurd degree, and it's barely a generation old!
Where does this expectation come from? Media? Politicians? Universities?
It's good to be curious. A little knowledge can be dangerous, but knowledge is generally useful. One often doesn't realize how knowledge of one subject will become applicable to other subjects later in life. And, as I often tell people, "God has offered you the entire world. Why accept just a part of it?"
But there is no responsibility to care about absolutely everything. And no person can escape the necessity of trust.
Keep that in mind when considering if someone's disinterest in a particular subject is anti-intellectual.
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: You Should Know
The startling lack of knowledge about basic civics among the citizenry and especially the political class reinforces your point. A well-informed voter should understand how our republic functions and appreciate that it is most competent when limited to constitutional bounds.
Dec '10
Re: You Should Know
A fine point. I still fear the extreme of the sentiment where some see no utility in knowing anything. They simply expect they can elect those who know it all to do their thinking for them. Bush was ridiculed for calling himself the decider, but, sadly, a decider is what many want.
May '10
Re: You Should Know
You have articulated (perhaps not intentionally) Hayek's argument of why planned and centralized economies are doomed to fail: the information deficit. No individual or group can possibly possess the amount of information that bubbles through the brains of millions (and now billions) of individual as to their needs, wants and the constraints of their budgets.
The most dangerous thing is "the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess."
Aug '10
Re: You Should Know
Beautiful, Aaron. Curiosity makes us alive, but it's simply not possible to know or care about everything. Finite beings must prioritize.
If you'll pardon me a minor usage quibble, though:
Aaron Miller:
Keep that in mind when considering if someone's disinterest in a particular subject is anti-intellectual. ·
I think in the South, it's acceptable usage to use disinterest for lack of interest. But wider usage is that disinterest means impartiality, not lack of interest.
Mar '11
Re: You Should Know
Aaron,
From the Crow's Nest book of leadership principles:
"I don't expect you to be an expert at everything. I expect you to know what the relevant questions are, who to ask them to, and when the answer doesn't make sense."
One of my early Commanding Officers taught me that. Not said it to me as a once off. Showed it to me in his every action. He taught it by word and deed. It stayed with me.
May '10
Re: You Should Know
Agreed. That should be essential knowledge. Sadly, our government's initial design is made more irrelevant every year.
Midget Faded Rattlesnake:
I think in the South, it's acceptable usage to use disinterest for lack of interest. But wider usage is that disinterest means impartiality, not lack of interest.
I have heard that before, and obviously forgot. My mistake.
Crow's Nest:
From the Crow's Nest book of leadership principles:
"I don't expect you to be an expert at everything. I expect you to know what the relevant questions are, who to ask them to, and when the answer doesn't make sense."
A noble goal.
I wish every Presidential candidate would list his advisors (future Cabinet) during the campaign.
Mar '11
Re: You Should Know
I would even go you one further, Aaron. It's not only the advisors that matter, it is the way a leader manages them.
As you know, a person who knows very little about a topic is often easily convinced by arguments that sound very persuasive--or, at worst, can't decide between two arguments that are presented equally persuasively on grounds that are any deeper than whim or convenience.
No leader can be an expert at everything, but I expect a level of general knowledge and a command of the material that is often above what candidates (on both sides) demonstrate in public.
So, by all means, refer to the counsel of experts. But don't sacrifice the leadership prerogative to a council of experts.
Jun '10
Re: You Should Know
I believe there are two levels in which your concerns are relevant.
1. Do we need experts to run the economy? No. I believe in Hayek's and Sowell's view that the generalized knowledge of vast numbers of buyers and sellers will always be smarter than the smartest experts/bureaucrats. Any regulation of these markets should at a high level for the purpose of assuring fairness in the market.
2. At the political level in assessing whether a proposed policy change (say Obamacare) is good or bad. First, at a high level we can apply our general knowledge (big versus small government; markets versus bureaucrats). At the level of experts (where the financial analysis, for example, is done) most of us must rely on experts we trust. For example, I'll take Sally Pipe's analysis over Krugman's any time. It becomes a matter of analyzing what we can analyze and then to rely on the people we trust.
Mar '11
Re: You Should Know
Aaron Miller
I wish every Presidential candidate would list his advisors (future Cabinet) during the campaign.
To be fair, Mr Obama did mention Warren Buffett as his financial adviser - hmm, wait a minute, didn't Mr Buffett say the other day that everything is fine?
Mr Obama did neglect to mention some of his other past advisers and mentors, however...
Oct '10
Re: You Should Know
the issue is that while you can't know Everything, you can't trust ANY of those bastards. I'm supposed to trust a guy who is too dumb or too dishonest to pay his own taxes to handle the treasury? Trust a guy who has a prostitution ring running out of his house? Term limits.......
Aug '10
Re: You Should Know
Since it doesn't pay and robs your attention from things that do, politics as practiced here at Ricochet must be some kind of addictive drug. That we "do these drugs" in the presence of other addicts , we do it in the resassuring knowledge that we, or someone nearby, knows the correct dosage. Overdoses are dealt with quickly here. Deadly combinations are treated as mixed metaphors (like this post) and venturing off the thread met with a deadly silence . Can we know everything ? Of course not , but you're as good as your network and there is probably someone here that does know. Or,like being lost in Mexico, you can always get directions but they may not be right.
Dec '10
Re: You Should Know
Aaron, I like this point of view and there are several aspects. The first is what I call "science as religion". The media is wee-wee'd up over a survey that says that only 44% of Americans "believe" in anthroprogenic global warming.
Consider the word choice there, "believe". A religious question. We do not have the ability to properly evaluate the data, models or theories used therein. Typically, science is so dynamic and has so much motivation to obtain exciting new results that there's motivation to disprove wrong theories.
Sometimes, however, it takes a long time to uncover a hoax (Piltdown Man) let alone just sloppy or incorrect theories. But now we have a science (AGW) that is corrupt to the core, so much so that they use the term "deniers".
Whether it be economics or science, common sense and skepticism goes a long way. These people are rarely great intellects and even so, the truly complicated stuff isn't necessary to understand basic principles.
Can I take the opportunity to emphasize the value of mathematics? It is the framework for any sufficiently complex regimented thought.
Edited on July 12, 2011 at 11:16pmJul '10
Re: You Should Know
Specialization is for ants - Robert A Heinlein
I am a professional Generalist, practicing something akin to General Semantics. As a Software Architect I have some direct experience in almost every specialty in my field and live, in part, by learning the business processes of commercial and government organizations better than their managers and providing them with briefs and documentation and prototypes and fully tested production systems to automate their business functions and integrate them with internal and external partner organizations.
I have always been more interested in learning something new than in perfecting and practicing what knowledge I have. Unlike college professors, I contend with real world constraints every day as I use what I learn.
While some of our politicians do have a polymath drive and curiosity, Gingrich comes to mind, most are excellent at getting elected and pretty good at staying in office and expecting more is begging for disappointment.
I agree with the call for term limits. 18 years is enough for anyone, I would not object to 12. Career politicians prove time and again that they do not qualify as representatives of the people when they spend 30-50 years in office.
Jan '11
Re: You Should Know
This happens in all kinds of arenas.
You pay a doctor to "advise" you, but let's face it, he's basically the decision-maker. That's because he went through years of medical training. Me? I watched mommy put on band-aids. So, the reason you went to the professional in the first place is that he knows more than you ... but in turn, that means that you can't independently assess whether his advice is any good. You can only rely on reputation and take a guess whether he's honest, or competent.
Same for a lawyer, a plumber, a car mechanic ... if you knew how to address the problem yourself, you needn't have bothered with a "professional." You pay a pro because he has depth in the topic that you don't have.
However, there are two notable professions who insist that you follow their judgment, even if their knowledge is wide but shallow. These two professions presume (arrogantly) to be expert on every topic, and consider you to be "uninformed" if you don't agree with them:
Oct '10
Re: You Should Know
Since the vote of any individual has a negligible probability of influencing the outcome of an election, it is rational for a voter to invest a negligible amount of time and effort to inform themselves on the issues at dispute: this has been called “rational ignorance”, and of course while it's entirely reasonable from the standpoint of an individual, it can lead to disaster when adopted by a large fraction of the electorate.
In The Myth of the Rational Voter, Bryan Caplan discusses how not only ignorance but a set of systematic biases, some opposed to the voters' direct personal self-interest, influence elections and argues that the only solution is to limit the scope of government action.
It's one thing to read Caplan's book and another to indirectly imbibe U.S. mainstream media broadcast news for the first time in 20 years on a visit to the U.S. last month. One can check off each variety of irrationality being retailed to the audience in every broadcast.
Oct '10
Re: You Should Know
Aaron... perhaps the most fundamental issue towards knowing who you will trust as an expert and how you will decide, is to have a carefully thought out world view. For myself, I have invested heavily of my time and mental energies to discern that my world view is; Evangelical Christian Conservative, and look at every expert through the lens of that world view.
Over my lifetime, that world view has undergone the processes of refinement and even reconsideration, but in the end, I have consciously examined my every decision. to the extent that I haven't gotten momentarily lazy or stupid or greedy. With that in mind, I can almost immediately spot conflicts within my world view, and question the "expert's" judgment.
BUT, it is with humility that I am ready to accept challenges to my world view and modify when necessary. I might or might not be correct in my vision of the life around me, but I live a satisfied life and would that others reach their decisions in like manner.
May '11
Re: You Should Know
We live in a very complex society. As a society we're still trying to figure how to run our complex society. Homo sapiens have existed for around 2 to 6 million years most of those years as hunter gathers. Only over the last 4 or 5 thousand years have we really lived in complex societies. There are too many questions we really have no answers for. We have growing empirical evidence on how to deal with our complex society but in reality we're a bunch of lab rats trying to figure out how to get thru this complex maze of a society and finding that huge piece of moldy cheese. Most opinions people espouse are theoretical. It's important to be curious and learn as much as possible but it's also important to be humble and realize you and our collecetive knowledge isn't as elevated as one thinks. I'm not saying we don't have hard truths and I don't beleive in moral relativism. We're just not as smart as we think we are.
Dec '10
Re: You Should Know
thelonious, that is EXACTLY why none of us is qualified to rule over another. It is those who fail to understand their limitations and exaggerate their capacities that get us into a world of hurt.
"Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him." Socrates in Apology (I will never run out of opportunities to use that quote.)
Jun '11
Re: You Should Know
About a hundred years ago the Progressives were saying that a representative republic was no longer functional, that life had become so complicated we would have to turn over the reigns of power to an elite group of highly trained specialists in order to survive and prosper. A hundred years from now they'll be saying the same thing and they'll still be wrong. Technology may increase and knowledge expand but fundamental principles still apply because human nature is a constant. The only question is: Will the great mass of people allow themselves to be dumbed down to the point where they no longer recognize the founding principles and thus let their liberty slip through their fingers?
Edited on July 13, 2011 at 3:44amMay '11
Re: You Should Know
The King Prawn: thelonious, that is EXACTLY why none of us is qualified to rule over another. It is those who fail to understand their limitations and exaggerate their capacities that get us into a world of hurt.
"Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him." Socrates in Apology (I will never run out of opportunities to use that quote.) · Jul 12 at 6:35pm
Amen Brother. Amen.