Ignorance isn't intentional

[rousseau]

I made a thread a while back called 'why we should do away with the word stupid'. This thread is in a similar vein with a slightly different angle, and I wonder what others think of the idea.

If we look at the definition of ignorant:

ignorant - lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact

We notice that ignorance isn't a 'positive' attribute, it's a 'negative' attribute. In other words, ignorance is the result of a lack of knowledge, and not willful attainment of something. So, for the most part, someone who's ignorant of some thing isn't that way intentionally, but because they, or others, haven't been able to remove the ignorance yet.

So when someone is ignorant of something it's not really their fault.

 

[Unbeatable]

Of course it's not really their fault. Personal responsibility is a social convention to begin with. As is personhood, for that matter. There's no such thing as "really their fault", because there is no such thing in reality as "fault" and there is no such thing in reality as "them". We apply these labels to things wherever it happens to prove convenient to do so. So the question isn't whether the state of ignorance is someone's fault or not; it's what are the costs and benefits of treating it as if it was? Does it cause them to remove their own ignorance without us having to do anything to help them? Does it fail to change their level of ignorance, but at least allow us to avoid cognitive dissonance when we callously leave them to die or live as second-class citizens due to the effects of their ignorance? And so on.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

In other words, ignorance is the result of a lack of knowledge, and not willful attainment of something.

Willful ignorance means a person has the resources at their disposal to gain insight and clarity on a subject and chooses -- to the extent any person can choose -- to ignore or disregard those resources. We could debate the validity of 'choice' or trace back some endless regression on what causes us to choose one way over another in any given scenario, but at a certain point it is quite meaningful to look at a person's actions and accept that yes, that person's actions are problematic. Even without moralizing it, it is at times necessary to recognize fault in an individual or their actions when they fail in their responsibilities and/ or cause harm to others. Willful ignorance sometimes -- though certainly not always -- falls into the category of where we may need to examine fault.

 

[DBT]

Output - thoughts, feelings, drives, hopes, aspirations, fears, actions - is a reflection of the information state of the system as it evolves over time....

 

[bilby]

"Ignorance isn't intentional"?

Hmmm. I don't know about that.

 

[fromderinside]

Its the other one. Really? I didn't know.

 

[skepticalbip]

I made a thread a while back called 'why we should do away with the word stupid'. This thread is in a similar vein with a slightly different angle, and I wonder what others think of the idea.

If we look at the definition of ignorant:

ignorant - lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact

We notice that ignorance isn't a 'positive' attribute, it's a 'negative' attribute. In other words, ignorance is the result of a lack of knowledge, and not willful attainment of something. So, for the most part, someone who's ignorant of some thing isn't that way intentionally, but because they, or others, haven't been able to remove the ignorance yet.

So when someone is ignorant of something it's not really their fault.

First you start with "stupid" then switch to "ignorant" as if they are synonyms. They aren't. Stupid means not having the mental capacity to understand. Ignorance means not knowing something due to lack of sufficient exposure. As for ignorance, we are all ignorant on some subjects even though we may have good understanding of other subjects. There is too much knowledge in too many fields for anyone to be fully knowledgeable on everything. So it is a choice of which subjects we choose to be knowledgeable on and which subjects we choose to remain ignorant on necessitated by the limitations of time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So when someone is ignorant of something it's not really their fault.

What difference does it make, 'fault' or 'not their fault?'
The only time their ignorance is significant is when they choose to talk about something they don't know shit about.
Those politicians who feel it important to 'stand up to these experts,' for one.
Or theists who talk at length about what atheists think, or what gays want.
Or the apologists who want to prove God 'based on the fact that (hate crime against history inserted here).'

Then 'ignorance' is a diagnosis, not assigning blame.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Very often ignorance is due to a willful decision not to learn more about the subject matter.

 

[fast]

I made a thread a while back called 'why we should do away with the word stupid'. This thread is in a similar vein with a slightly different angle, and I wonder what others think of the idea.

If we look at the definition of ignorant:

ignorant - lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact

We notice that ignorance isn't a 'positive' attribute, it's a 'negative' attribute. In other words, ignorance is the result of a lack of knowledge, and not willful attainment of something. So, for the most part, someone who's ignorant of some thing isn't that way intentionally, but because they, or others, haven't been able to remove the ignorance yet.

So when someone is ignorant of something it's not really their fault.

Removing ignorance, you say. Interesting articulation. It's not as if there is something for the removal. The lack of something isn't something. The basis of ignorance may (at times) be misinformation, and that is something, and it can be replaced. Some say that the cure for ignorance is education.

 

[rousseau]

So when someone is ignorant of something it's not really their fault.

What difference does it make, 'fault' or 'not their fault?'
The only time their ignorance is significant is when they choose to talk about something they don't know shit about.
Those politicians who feel it important to 'stand up to these experts,' for one.
Or theists who talk at length about what atheists think, or what gays want.
Or the apologists who want to prove God 'based on the fact that (hate crime against history inserted here).'

Then 'ignorance' is a diagnosis, not assigning blame.

The whole line of thinking started when I noticed a bunch of people I know on Facebook constantly reaming at the general public. "Man people are so dumb and they're ruining everything". It's just such an awkward and misguided outlook on people.

I get that it's easy to be angry about, but at some point you need to just call a spade a spade and forget about it.

 

[DBT]

Things that are ruined, environment, amenities, life style, etc, are often ruined because there are people who want to make money, a lot of money...and not because they are 'dumb' or necessarily ignorant, but focused upon their goal of financial security, getting rich. Usually justified for good reasons, providing for the family, a nice home, investments for the future, car, holidays...

 

[arkirk]

Very often ignorance is due to a willful decision not to learn more about the subject matter.

Then you admit it is intentional? I think there can easily be such a thing as displacement of knowledge by myth, by lie, and by an attitude that does not like the moral burden one feels one might have to accept with some knowledge. Thus any chance of obtaining that knowledge can be assiduously avoided.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I think in the public's mind, the word ignorance carries a negative connotation it does not deserve.

If a person speaks on a subject he is ignorant about and turns away from further learning we call it willful ignorance. But what of the subject matter expert who turns away from teaching? Isn't his duty to teach at least equal to the learner's duty to learn? Also, to teach in such a way so as not to come across as smug? Smugness is intentional.

Introduced in the right quantity at the right time, a primer and a spark is all it takes.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

But what of the subject matter expert who turns away from teaching? Isn't his duty to teach at least equal to the learner's duty to learn?

No, not inherently, unless that person is a teacher of some sort. I am an expert in certain facets of my job. It took a lot of effort to gain that knowledge, and it takes further effort to apply it to my continuing work. It would take further effort still to teach, so if someone wants or needs to know what I know, their duty to learn is higher than mine to teach. Different scenarios will balance out differently.

Also, to teach in such a way so as not to come across as smug?

Authority can be mistaken for smugness or arrogance when the audience has a bias or an inferiority complex. That's not to suggest an expert can't be smug or that it wouldn't be problematic, but it's one of many personal and emotional issues which could diminish the teacher-student relationship (whether it's a formal or informal arrangement). An insecure expert wouldn't be a great deal better. A smug learner would be difficult to teach.

 

[Kharakov]

That's not to suggest an expert can't be smug or that it wouldn't be problematic, but it's one of many personal and emotional issues which could diminish the teacher-student relationship (whether it's a formal or informal arrangement). An insecure expert wouldn't be a great deal better. A smug learner would be difficult to teach.

An "expert" who insists they are correct in the face of mathematical proof is fucking annoying.

 

[fast]

No, not inherently, unless that person is a teacher of some sort. I am an expert in certain facets of my job. It took a lot of effort to gain that knowledge, and it takes further effort to apply it to my continuing work. It would take further effort still to teach, so if someone wants or needs to know what I know, their duty to learn is higher than mine to teach. Different scenarios will balance out differently.

Also, to teach in such a way so as not to come across as smug?

Authority can be mistaken for smugness or arrogance when the audience has a bias or an inferiority complex. That's not to suggest an expert can't be smug or that it wouldn't be problematic, but it's one of many personal and emotional issues which could diminish the teacher-student relationship (whether it's a formal or informal arrangement). An insecure expert wouldn't be a great deal better. A smug learner would be difficult to teach.

Duty to learn?

Even if one has a duty to perform one's job, not even required continuing education classes becomes a duty. It seems to conflate an actual duty with what is needed to satisfy such a duty. To go even further away from a) what is actually the duty to b) passing a class then to c) learning seems to characterize duty as if it can be spread like butter and applied willy-nilly.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Duty to learn?

That is the phrasing the the post I addressed.

Even if one has a duty to perform one's job, not even required continuing education classes becomes a duty.

This is largely irrelevant to what you are quoting apart from the shared use of the word 'duty'. If there is a tangent you'd like to explore, by all means, as long as we preserve a distinction between what I have talked about and what you are talking about.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

An "expert" who insists they are correct in the face of mathematical proof is fucking annoying.

In that case it would bring us back to ignorance and a failing deeper than just personality quirks, I suppose.

 

[fast]

That is the phrasing the the post I addressed.

Even if one has a duty to perform one's job, not even required continuing education classes becomes a duty.

This is largely irrelevant to what you are quoting apart from the shared use of the word 'duty'. If there is a tangent you'd like to explore, by all means, as long as we preserve a distinction between what I have talked about and what you are talking about.

He asked a question that at the very least suggests if not outright implies that learning is or can be a duty. Your response in no way quelled that assumption. In fact, after reading what you wrote, it appears that the assumption taken by you both is that learning can rightfully be thought of as a duty. It just struck me as odd and I wanted to be inquisitive as to whether you really regarded learning as a duty.