Before industrialization there was a lot of ignorance. We can look at what was learned in the highest institutions of ancient times and see this. Even later, we can see Kings who were basically illiterate. Knowing that, we can excuse the actions of people while also knowing those actions were wrong. This gets more complicated in the world of global exploration when we see systems develop that promoted freedom, mobility, and increased welfare. Still, information moved slowly, and people were punished for seeking it out.
By the time we get to the mid-20th century, these excuses for ignorance are harder to justify. Today, it seems impossible that anyone with a basic education can’t figure something out, simply by looking it up. Yet, people don’t. Bonhoeffer saw this as a paradox that stupidity isn’t weak, it’s a strong social force, more dangerous than evil. He offers a look into the difference between ignorance and stupidity. His examination of problems caused by evil as compared to problems caused by people who have fallen into the easy answers of authority over reasoning should have taught us something about how to govern ourselves. That we haven’t, tells me it’s not a simple as we would like it to be. That most people don’t know the names mentioned in this video; Bonhoeffer, Arendt, and Russell, is a clue that these ideas aren’t just lost over time, they are hidden, buried under misinformation.
Evil can be confronted with reason and contained. Stupidity resists those forces. Ignorance can be corrected by identifying it. Stupidity shuts off that avenue deliberately. Even if power is gained through reason, the powerful can get lazy or stop believing they need to keep questioning themselves or the systems they created. When that is passed on over a generation, it becomes entrenched. Some solutions eventually are presented at the end of this talk, but even those have paradoxes.
Those who do question themselves, who use critical thinking, can be mystified by the actions of those who don’t. The people who don’t reflect on the consequences of their actions can be equally mystified that anyone would think that we can think our way out of our problems. Thinkers, like Bonhoeffer and Arendt may have hoped for a day when education, better economic systems, or simply lessening the burdens of labor would lead to less ignorance and improvement in how we handle stupidity. Instead, we still have justice systems that put minor criminals in prisons where they learn to be better criminals and oppressed people who clearly see how unjust the system is. Meanwhile, schools teach that the world has become more just.
“Arendt identified how individual refusal to question the authority of the state, the disregard for moral responsibility, and the failure to recognize the larger consequences of one’s actions are hallmarks of the kind of thinking that enables tyranny”
The call to action then, is to resist the pressures of conformity, to avoid falling into the trap of thoughtlessness, and to question the systems of power. This includes awakening others from their intellectual slumber, to encourage independent thought, and to ensure the mechanisms of power are held accountable. And we must recognize these tendencies in ourselves. Cultivating critical thinking is a lifelong pursuit while conformity is easy.
Bertrand Russell (begins at 9 minutes) saw how ignorance was rewarded and intelligence was penalized. He saw the preference for simple ideas over complex thinking. He also saw the structures that encourage stupidity. Sound bites and slogans avoid complexity. This was a trend in his time that has grown to weaponized proportions in ours. Certainty wins out over the complexity of reality.
Russell connected the historical trends to human psychology, the comfort of black and white answers versus the challenges of ambiguity and contradictions. That comfort is false but choosing engagement with reality takes effort. Mass media has made this situation worse, creating ideological bubbles where the comfort of group think is easily found and ignorance is actively nurtured.
At around 15 minutes
The cycle that Russell identified has repeated since his lifetime and intensified. That is, intelligent individuals find themselves at odds with current politics and are marginalized or repressed. Intelligence is devalued and further suppressed. Foolishness and stupidity fill the void. This is not a passive dynamic. The narrator asks if we are willing to “confront the discomfort of intelligence”.
They also point out stupidity is not only an individual failing. We recognize that children need an education, but we don’t have structures that ask what an adult needs when they fail to act in a way that promotes a better world. Stupidity is “a contagious social phenomenon” that is ingrained in the fabric of society.
As Yuval Harrari has recently elucidated, we are buried under the weight of information, some of it falsely legitimated through repetition. People gravitate towards a simple answer rather than critically engaging with complex issues. Social norms override dissent and reflection which increases polarization. The pressure to conform disconnects us from reality.
It begins early with teachers punishing kids for asking questions, instead of encouraging them to work through the logic and evidence. Skepticism is impotent when it is only a reaction to that authority, questioning without applying thinking. When groups adopt ideas the challenge of considering alternatives for people in that group increases. Lazy thinking becomes the norm and questioning is ostracized.
At 19:30 some serious strategies are finally considered.
Develop a mindset that values curiosity
Step outside of your social comfort zone and challenge your own beliefs
Constant learning and openness
Use of education, dialogue, and a commitment to independent thought
I think the talk falls short at this point. What it suggests, this list above, is how a PhD is conducted, how someone goes from a student to a partner in learning and questioning their own field of expertise. But that needs to start in Pre-K. It needs to come from leadership. Too often, when the questions from constituents get heated, the answer is that “it’s complicated” and “we’re working on it.” Compare this to someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson who can be seen encouraging people in his audience.
But let’s see what these guys say at 21:30
It starts with a repeat of “continuous intellectual engagement” and “don’t conform” and “question everything.”
They move on to Arendt’s need for moral and intellectual reflection. We are active moral agents in the world, accepting an authority’s version is the path to stupidity. One item I heard that maybe needs some focus, is taking responsibility for our actions. In my lifetime I’ve seen too much shouting of moral high truths and not so much humility about our moral failures.
They state that we “must” become more discerning consumers of information, but don’t provide much help with how to do that. A difficult one, perhaps even another paradox, is to surround ourselves with people who challenge us. To do that, you first need to develop the skill of recognizing who is encouraging you to grow intellectually and who is drawing you back into group think. I hope I’ve accomplished that in my few decades, but it was trail and error, sometimes years of error.
They mention encouraging debate, but that word is loaded with images of winning arguments through rhetorical tactics. I encourage the use of the word “dialog” where everyone is drawing out ideas, looking for input from everyone in the conversation, rather than using the same tactics of the authoritarians to demonstrate one right answer. They mention how we now value an appearance of confidence, but don’t discuss how to foster intellectual humility.
Perhaps my latest attempt at surrounding myself with people who challenge me will be another dead end, but I see differences. I see guidelines that say we all have blind spots. I see acknowledgment that not everyone will join the group that is questioning everything. I see valuing listening over assuming the role of authoritative teacher. I see those values and suggestions being followed by the people with leadership titles. This is the difference between awakening others and telling them they are wrong.
I caught a short clip this evening of Harrari saying that science began when we realized we were ignorant. It wasn’t a scientific discovery of intelligence that started that revolution, it was the admission that we don’t know everything and we don’t have special books with the truth in them.
