A Proliferation of Not Knowing?
Because of the way my Saturday mornings go, I rarely get to hear "Click and Clack" the Car Talk guys on NPR. I had heard them often enough to know they were funny. This AM, as I was running late, I found out how profound they can be.
They started out by talking, of all things, about the Nobel Prize for Economics. They segued into a letter from "Andy," received in the mists of their program's time. Evidently, Andy had asked a classic question, which went something like as follows: "If one person who does not know anything about a subject is joined by another person who also does not knowing anything about that subject, does the expression of their combined opinion have the same level of 'knowing,' or does the level of 'knowing' decrease?" As one of the brothers noted, is it might be possible to know "less than nothing?"
Of course, this not-knowing times two is the very premise of their show (they would say), but evidently, the question has more profound implications than the apparent absurdity of Andy's query. For the brothers went on to cite yet another listener who had written about a phenomenon of human behavior. That writer (I believe it was a woman) said basically that when three or more have gathered, it is difficult for one of them to disagree with the others, especially if one states their opinion categorically, whether they actually know what they are talking about, or not. In other words, someone who actually does NOT know anything can precipitate what the program called an "information cascade," simply because others are inclined to be agreeable!
The Car Brothers figured that this not only explained the popularity of their show..., but also had some bearing on the Nobel Prize for Economics, which they said was recently awarded to some academics who had figured out the same thing! This notion of an "information cascade" has economic consequences, it was said. I figured it just explained tabloid journalism..., and gossip..., and perhaps television programming.
But I was also wondering whether it might have positive spiritual consequences. Back in the day, when I was teaching bereavement volunteers how to be effective listeners, one of the three principles I taught was, "We don't know anything." Not-knowing helped us clear away our pre-conceptions and pre-judgments, and be open to whatever we were being told was the mourner's own experience.
Suppose, I found myself thinking this morning, that a Presidential candidate began to live by the principle of not-knowing. I mean, do any of them really "know" what to do about Iraq or Global Climate Change, or the increasing divide between the rich and the poor in our country and world-wide? What if, in fact, we began to expect them not to know anything? Wouldn't this be a more honorable stance than the picky partisanship we now witness? More, if not-knowing could cascade, would more Presidential candidates step forward and tell us that, what do you know, they don't know anything either? What if not-knowing became something of a gauge of a candidate's honesty, and openness, and willingness to listen, to a variety of opinions and maybe even to us, the voting public? What a concept! Heck, we might even witness a revival of that early American political party, the "Know Nothings!"
I don't know whether it would good for history to repeat itself in that way, but it sure would be nice if we would not bequeath to history a continual repetition of leaders who tell us they know something that they really don't. Especially if these folks are simply counting on us to go along in some sort of shameless "information cascade."
Beyond wondering why the phenomenon was not called a "misinformation cascade," I have two encouragements: Let's see if we can't find some way to be more respectfully disagreeable with each other, thus reviving actual debate and discussion. And let's hope for people to come forward to lead us who know the true value of not-knowing. Both of these combined would be a good antidote to the empty know-it-all-ism whose prevalence has such unfortunate consequences for us these days.
They started out by talking, of all things, about the Nobel Prize for Economics. They segued into a letter from "Andy," received in the mists of their program's time. Evidently, Andy had asked a classic question, which went something like as follows: "If one person who does not know anything about a subject is joined by another person who also does not knowing anything about that subject, does the expression of their combined opinion have the same level of 'knowing,' or does the level of 'knowing' decrease?" As one of the brothers noted, is it might be possible to know "less than nothing?"
Of course, this not-knowing times two is the very premise of their show (they would say), but evidently, the question has more profound implications than the apparent absurdity of Andy's query. For the brothers went on to cite yet another listener who had written about a phenomenon of human behavior. That writer (I believe it was a woman) said basically that when three or more have gathered, it is difficult for one of them to disagree with the others, especially if one states their opinion categorically, whether they actually know what they are talking about, or not. In other words, someone who actually does NOT know anything can precipitate what the program called an "information cascade," simply because others are inclined to be agreeable!
The Car Brothers figured that this not only explained the popularity of their show..., but also had some bearing on the Nobel Prize for Economics, which they said was recently awarded to some academics who had figured out the same thing! This notion of an "information cascade" has economic consequences, it was said. I figured it just explained tabloid journalism..., and gossip..., and perhaps television programming.
But I was also wondering whether it might have positive spiritual consequences. Back in the day, when I was teaching bereavement volunteers how to be effective listeners, one of the three principles I taught was, "We don't know anything." Not-knowing helped us clear away our pre-conceptions and pre-judgments, and be open to whatever we were being told was the mourner's own experience.
Suppose, I found myself thinking this morning, that a Presidential candidate began to live by the principle of not-knowing. I mean, do any of them really "know" what to do about Iraq or Global Climate Change, or the increasing divide between the rich and the poor in our country and world-wide? What if, in fact, we began to expect them not to know anything? Wouldn't this be a more honorable stance than the picky partisanship we now witness? More, if not-knowing could cascade, would more Presidential candidates step forward and tell us that, what do you know, they don't know anything either? What if not-knowing became something of a gauge of a candidate's honesty, and openness, and willingness to listen, to a variety of opinions and maybe even to us, the voting public? What a concept! Heck, we might even witness a revival of that early American political party, the "Know Nothings!"
I don't know whether it would good for history to repeat itself in that way, but it sure would be nice if we would not bequeath to history a continual repetition of leaders who tell us they know something that they really don't. Especially if these folks are simply counting on us to go along in some sort of shameless "information cascade."
Beyond wondering why the phenomenon was not called a "misinformation cascade," I have two encouragements: Let's see if we can't find some way to be more respectfully disagreeable with each other, thus reviving actual debate and discussion. And let's hope for people to come forward to lead us who know the true value of not-knowing. Both of these combined would be a good antidote to the empty know-it-all-ism whose prevalence has such unfortunate consequences for us these days.
posted by TRXTR | 5:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home