Sympathy for the Ignorant

[Elixir]

I try not to condemn people for ignorance or stupidity unless it's willful. And that's not an easy determination in many cases. In the environment created by the Trump presidency I find myself becoming less and less reticent to let my anger at the willfully stupid to overwhelm my empathy for those who are biologically or circumstantially handicapped through no fault of their own. That is something for which I deeply resent the orange menace. In the case of someone like SH's friend who is intelligent but chooses to only watch FOX News (I know a few like that too), I make at least one attempt to get them to expose themselves to some other sources of factual information. If they're unwilling to "look through the glass" I mostly write them off.

 

[southernhybrid]

I try not to condemn people for ignorance or stupidity unless it's willful. And that's not an easy determination in many cases. In the environment created by the Trump presidency I find myself becoming less and less reticent to let my anger at the willfully stupid to overwhelm my empathy for those who are biologically or circumstantially handicapped through no fault of their own. That is something for which I deeply resent the orange menace. In the case of someone like SH's friend who is intelligent but chooses to only watch FOX News (I know a few like that too), I make at least one attempt to get them to expose themselves to some other sources of factual information. If they're unwilling to "look through the glass" I mostly write them off.

I understand how you feel but I'm just not convinced that there is such. a thing as willful ignorance. Let me give you an example of what happens when someone criticizes a Trump supporter who watches Fox News. My next door neighbor, who is a Democrat, has a hard time ignoring the Trump supporters in her family, so she gets into arguments with them on Facebook. Last week, after telling one of them how corrupt Trump was, the person replied with something like, "you need to do some research and learn the facts". In other words, I think their minds have been so indoctrinated by Fox and Trump, that they honestly believe the NYTimes, WaPo, CNN et all, are fake news and we're the ones who are being mislead. I don't know how you can influence a person who has been deeply indoctrinated. Are many of them even capable of changing or considering that they aren't getting the facts from their favorite source of "news".

As far as my friend, we just totally avoid any discussion of politics and religion. We're not really that close, but we respect each other as nurses. Most of our short conversations are about nursing or female stuff. I only see her about once a year and we usually just text each other. She knows that I identify as a secular liberal and I know she loves Fox News because when I used to visit Facebook, I saw some of the nutty political things she posted. I doubt that trying to convince her to look at sources of factual information would do anything but alienate her. I also doubt we could ever be very close friends, although we have mutual respect and affection for each other as humans.

But, there are times when I would love to scream at my nutty "redneck" neighbors who sometimes drive a huge pick up truck with a huge Trump banner hanging off of the back of it. I don't know them personally so it's best for my mental health to simply ignore them. On the other hand, my next door neighbor gets herself into a tizzy over anyone who has a Trump sign in their yards etc. I guess she can't help it. There's some nut job about a mile from our homes who has a sign in the yard that reads, "NEVER HILLARY". It's been there for over three years. It drives my neighbor nuts, while I think it makes the people in that house look hateful and nuts. It's no sweat off me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I understand how you feel but I'm just not convinced that there is such. a thing as willful ignorance.

How about a senator choosing not to read the deposition transcripts?

 

[Elixir]

I understand how you feel but I'm just not convinced that there is such. a thing as willful ignorance.

How about a senator choosing not to read the deposition transcripts?

Zackly. There are the victims who are too clueless to know they are ignorant, and those who are truly willfully ignorant or who feign ignorance in order to take advantage of the victims.

 

[Treedbear]

I try not to condemn people for ignorance or stupidity unless it's willful. And that's not an easy determination in many cases. In the environment created by the Trump presidency I find myself becoming less and less reticent to let my anger at the willfully stupid to overwhelm my empathy for those who are biologically or circumstantially handicapped through no fault of their own. That is something for which I deeply resent the orange menace. In the case of someone like SH's friend who is intelligent but chooses to only watch FOX News (I know a few like that too), I make at least one attempt to get them to expose themselves to some other sources of factual information. If they're unwilling to "look through the glass" I mostly write them off.

Well said. In most cases it probably requires some direct interaction to determine if someone is willfully avoiding the facts. I'd usually avoid that person entirely except when it's a relationship I need to maintain at work or within my family. In that case I avoid the subject and try to improve the relationship regarding everything else. That way there's always some hope they will be influenced to change their mind.

But I'd rather not get all emotionally tied into individual stupidity. Life is too short and my opinion isn't that important. I'm not running for office and I value my objectivity too much to get caught up running around in circles. Especially in today's climate of Trump and gaslighting. That said I am worried about where our country is headed.

 

[southernhybrid]

I understand how you feel but I'm just not convinced that there is such. a thing as willful ignorance.

How about a senator choosing not to read the deposition transcripts?

I don't know. They have put their personal goals ahead of everything else. Can they help it? I honestly don't know. Do I despise these people? Yes! I can't help myself either. If you believe in the concept of free will, then you can judge them as doing something willfully ignorant. If you don't believe or are skeptical of the concept of free will, then there's no such thing as willful ignorance, is there? I tend to think that we only have the illusion of freewill. If I really believe that, I can't accept the concept of willful ignorance.

These senators are probably not sociopaths, but they would need to be convinced that they need to change their opinion and do the right thing. Unless they can be convinced to change, they will likely continue down this harmful path. It's sort of like what I mentioned earlier. Can a bad person change his behavior? Probably not unless there are circumstances which help the person understand that the behavior is wrong.

When it comes to tRump himself, I see him as mentally deranged and incapable of changing. When it comes to the Senators, it's possible they could change if the right circumstances were to happen. Am I totally disgusted with them? Absolutely. But, something must influence them to make them change. It appears right now, as if the only thing that will influence them may be if enough of their constituents start to see that Trump is doing could result in irreparable damage to the country. Or, maybe some of them will wake the fuck up and realize they are aiding an incompetent, dangerous man. I didn't mean to make this a political discussion, but considering what is going on in the US, it's difficult not to make everything about politics.

 

[rousseau]

I understand how you feel but I'm just not convinced that there is such. a thing as willful ignorance.

How about a senator choosing not to read the deposition transcripts?

I understand how you feel but I'm just not convinced that there is such. a thing as willful ignorance.

How about a senator choosing not to read the deposition transcripts?

Zackly. There are the victims who are too clueless to know they are ignorant, and those who are truly willfully ignorant or who feign ignorance in order to take advantage of the victims.

That would be a different issue. If someone is consciously choosing to remain ignorant, that's not ignorance and outside the scope of this thread. We're looking at those people who are too clueless to know.

 

[southernhybrid]

Would you consider people who follow a cult leader to be ignorant, or brainwashed? If you follow a leader blindly, is that different from being ignorant? It does seem complicated.

Let's take Jim Jones for example, the cult leader who got his followers to literally drink the poison Kool Aide and die. Weren't those people ignorant of the fact that their leader was about to cause them to die? Or am I way off track from the intent of your OP, Rousseau? If so, I'll stop bringing up the brainwashed cult followers.

 

[rousseau]

Would you consider people who follow a cult leader to be ignorant, or brainwashed? If you follow a leader blindly, is that different from being ignorant? It does seem complicated.

Let's take Jim Jones for example, the cult leader who got his followers to literally drink the poison Kool Aide and die. Weren't those people ignorant of the fact that their leader was about to cause them to die? Or am I way off track from the intent of your OP, Rousseau? If so, I'll stop bringing up the brainwashed cult followers.

I'm with you on the willful ignorance bit, I believe the line there is subtle and some of what we call willful ignorance, is in fact just plain ignorance. For example, some may call a Trumpster who refuses to use the internet to seek information 'willfully ignorant', when it's possible that the person in question just hasn't considered that possibility for whatever reason.

Where in elixir and Keith's example it sounds like deception or disingenuousness rather than true ignorance.

I'm not sure you would delineate between ignorant and brainwashed, but brainwashing may be a way to cause ignorance by deception. The brainwashed are ignorant to reality, but the ignorant to reality aren't always brainwashed.

 

[Treedbear]

Would you consider people who follow a cult leader to be ignorant, or brainwashed? If you follow a leader blindly, is that different from being ignorant? It does seem complicated.

Let's take Jim Jones for example, the cult leader who got his followers to literally drink the poison Kool Aide and die. Weren't those people ignorant of the fact that their leader was about to cause them to die? Or am I way off track from the intent of your OP, Rousseau? If so, I'll stop bringing up the brainwashed cult followers.

I'm with you on the willful ignorance bit, I believe the line there is subtle and some of what we call willful ignorance, is in fact just plain ignorance. For example, some may call a Trumpster who refuses to use the internet to seek information 'willfully ignorant', when it's possible that the person in question just hasn't considered that possibility for whatever reason.

Where in elixir and Keith's example it sounds like deception or disingenuousness rather than true ignorance.

I'm not sure you would delineate between ignorant and brainwashed, but brainwashing may be a way to cause ignorance by deception. The brainwashed are ignorant to reality, but the ignorant to reality aren't always brainwashed.

It seems to me that brainwashing is the result of being just plain ignorant. Not many people are willfully ignorant of brainwashing and gaslighting methods. Probably none of us are completely immune to it. But it does take an act of will to ignore evidence and rational arguments for why they are mistaken. The thing is a victim of brainwashing has to overcome lots of conflicting reasons to ignore those arguments.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think we are more or less on the same page. It's hard to know what's going on in other people's minds.

 

[Treedbear]

I think we are more or less on the same page. It's hard to know what's going on in other people's minds.

True.

Well, since I'm not convinced that we even have free will, I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as willful ignorance.
...

The exception being that I do believe in free will. We are free to be what all that we are and only what we are. Why would anyone want more than that?

 

[rousseau]

Would you consider people who follow a cult leader to be ignorant, or brainwashed? If you follow a leader blindly, is that different from being ignorant? It does seem complicated.

Let's take Jim Jones for example, the cult leader who got his followers to literally drink the poison Kool Aide and die. Weren't those people ignorant of the fact that their leader was about to cause them to die? Or am I way off track from the intent of your OP, Rousseau? If so, I'll stop bringing up the brainwashed cult followers.

I'm with you on the willful ignorance bit, I believe the line there is subtle and some of what we call willful ignorance, is in fact just plain ignorance. For example, some may call a Trumpster who refuses to use the internet to seek information 'willfully ignorant', when it's possible that the person in question just hasn't considered that possibility for whatever reason.

Where in elixir and Keith's example it sounds like deception or disingenuousness rather than true ignorance.

I'm not sure you would delineate between ignorant and brainwashed, but brainwashing may be a way to cause ignorance by deception. The brainwashed are ignorant to reality, but the ignorant to reality aren't always brainwashed.

It seems to me that brainwashing is the result of being just plain ignorant. Not many people are willfully ignorant of brainwashing and gaslighting methods. Probably none of us are completely immune to it. But it does take an act of will to ignore evidence and rational arguments for why they are mistaken. The thing is a victim of brainwashing has to overcome lots of conflicting reasons to ignore those arguments.

What is an 'act of will' to you?

Speaking from my experience at a younger age when I fit the bill as someone who would ignore evidence - many people, especially at this forum, seem to mistake their propensity for rational thought as a human universal. 'Because I can reason abstractly through a problem, everyone can'.

The elephant in the room, however, is that many of us aren't rational actors and have no heuristics to guide our understanding of the world. Given a good percentage of Americans still support Trump, I'd guess that this is a lot of us.

The kicker here is that arguing these people 'ignore evidence and rational argument' isn't quite right, when the reality is that they just don't respond rationally to argument. They're not ignoring it, they're just intellectually incapable of internalizing it.

 

[Treedbear]

It seems to me that brainwashing is the result of being just plain ignorant. Not many people are willfully ignorant of brainwashing and gaslighting methods. Probably none of us are completely immune to it. But it does take an act of will to ignore evidence and rational arguments for why they are mistaken. The thing is a victim of brainwashing has to overcome lots of conflicting reasons to ignore those arguments.

What is an 'act of will' to you?

Intentionally acting or else intentionally not acting. That is, with some amount of deliberation or at least conscious consideration. Willful ignorance requires a decision to avoid seeking the truth.

Speaking from my experience at a younger age when I fit the bill as someone who would ignore evidence - many people, especially at this forum, seem to mistake their propensity for rational thought as a human universal. 'Because I can reason abstractly through a problem, everyone can'.

All reasoning is abstract to some degree.

The elephant in the room, however, is that many of us aren't rational actors and have no heuristics to guide our understanding of the world. Given a good percentage of Americans still support Trump, I'd guess that this is a lot of us.

The kicker here is that arguing these people 'ignore evidence and rational argument' isn't quite right, when the reality is that they just don't respond rationally to argument. They're not ignoring it, they're just intellectually incapable of internalizing it.

Well assuming they have some opinion on the issue they must have decided to accept that it's true based on some level of reasoning. But there are many reasons they might have for believing the way they do, and it's not necessarily based on the substance of the issue but rather on cultural norms or heuristics based on faith in one's community, which includes religious associations.

 

[rousseau]

Intentionally acting or else intentionally not acting. That is, with some amount of deliberation or at least conscious consideration. Willful ignorance requires a decision to avoid seeking the truth.

Speaking from my experience at a younger age when I fit the bill as someone who would ignore evidence - many people, especially at this forum, seem to mistake their propensity for rational thought as a human universal. 'Because I can reason abstractly through a problem, everyone can'.

All reasoning is abstract to some degree.

The elephant in the room, however, is that many of us aren't rational actors and have no heuristics to guide our understanding of the world. Given a good percentage of Americans still support Trump, I'd guess that this is a lot of us.

The kicker here is that arguing these people 'ignore evidence and rational argument' isn't quite right, when the reality is that they just don't respond rationally to argument. They're not ignoring it, they're just intellectually incapable of internalizing it.

Well assuming they have some opinion on the issue they must have decided to accept that it's true based on some level of reasoning. But there are many reasons they might have for believing the way they do, and it's not necessarily based on the substance of the issue but rather on cultural norms or heuristics based on faith in one's community, which includes religious associations.

That's true, although my point is along the lines of this reasoning not being logically sound. You can reason as a verb, but your reasoning is not necessarily reasonable. For example, if you can't comprehend that you may not have enough information to make an informed decision, you're not really 'reasoning', you're just responding with emotion / bias. Good reasoning skills take a broad conceptual understanding that at best many of us don't have, and at worse have very little.

That type of thing is what leads people to respond irrationally to new information, as well as the other reasons you mention (which in a way is more intuitively perceptive than 'reason', because social bonds trump truth).

And that's what this thread is primarily about - our relationship with that type of person.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Well assuming they have some opinion on the issue they must have decided to accept that it's true based on some level of reasoning. But there are many reasons they might have for believing the way they do, and it's not necessarily based on the substance of the issue but rather on cultural norms or heuristics based on faith in one's community, which includes religious associations.

That's true, although my point is along the lines of this reasoning not being logically sound. You can reason as a verb, but your reasoning is not necessarily reasonable. For example, if you can't comprehend that you may not have enough information to make an informed decision, you're not really 'reasoning', you're just responding with emotion / bias. Good reasoning skills take a broad conceptual understanding that at best many of us don't have, and at worse have very little.

That type of thing is what leads people to respond irrationally to new information, as well as the other reasons you mention (which in a way is more intuitively perceptive than 'reason', because social bonds trump truth).

And that's what this thread is primarily about - our relationship with that type of person.

Then you must be refering to people who are past the age when they are able to accept new ways of thinking due to never being exposed to diverse viewpoints as well as having acquired deeply ingrained biases. I'd agree with you that folks like that exist, but I think I've never encountered one and I always assume that someone has the ability to learn if I'm patient and not too confrontational. That's just my style. But it's hard to say how effective it is.

 

[rousseau]

...
Well assuming they have some opinion on the issue they must have decided to accept that it's true based on some level of reasoning. But there are many reasons they might have for believing the way they do, and it's not necessarily based on the substance of the issue but rather on cultural norms or heuristics based on faith in one's community, which includes religious associations.

That's true, although my point is along the lines of this reasoning not being logically sound. You can reason as a verb, but your reasoning is not necessarily reasonable. For example, if you can't comprehend that you may not have enough information to make an informed decision, you're not really 'reasoning', you're just responding with emotion / bias. Good reasoning skills take a broad conceptual understanding that at best many of us don't have, and at worse have very little.

That type of thing is what leads people to respond irrationally to new information, as well as the other reasons you mention (which in a way is more intuitively perceptive than 'reason', because social bonds trump truth).

And that's what this thread is primarily about - our relationship with that type of person.

Then you must be refering to people who are past the age when they are able to accept new ways of thinking due to never being exposed to diverse viewpoints as well as having acquired deeply ingrained biases. I'd agree with you that folks like that exist, but I think I've never encountered one and I always assume that someone has the ability to learn if I'm patient and not too confrontational. That's just my style. But it's hard to say how effective it is.

Cultural inputs might be a part of it, but I've always been more inclined to lean towards a genetic explanation.

In short, many of us are unable to reason soundly through problems, which has an exponential effect on forms of learning, or lack thereof. If we can't reason well, we can't learn from new information well, and the pace that we evolve and grow is very slow. And at worst we become misinformed as we take false information to be true (e.g. Fox News, Russian pandering online).

It's great that you always assume someone has the ability to learn, and I'd agree with you. Although that has us arrive at the issue that many instead assume that this type of person is intentionally malicious, 'stupid', 'unconscionable'.

As for my own opinion, I'd argue that at a fundamental level this attitude we often have is harmful. Slinging invective at people who don't respond rationally to argument isn't likely going to improve the situation. And beyond that it may be the case that many of us don't control our own beliefs, and so philosophically, spiritually, there is a path toward acceptance there - 'this is how the world is'.

 

[Treedbear]

Then you must be refering to people who are past the age when they are able to accept new ways of thinking due to never being exposed to diverse viewpoints as well as having acquired deeply ingrained biases. I'd agree with you that folks like that exist, but I think I've never encountered one and I always assume that someone has the ability to learn if I'm patient and not too confrontational. That's just my style. But it's hard to say how effective it is.

Cultural inputs might be a part of it, but I've always been more inclined to lean towards a genetic explanation.

I guess that explains our difference. I see culture as having a far larger influence on adaptive evolution than does genetics.

In short, many of us are unable to reason soundly through problems, which has an exponential effect on forms of learning, or lack thereof. If we can't reason well, we can't learn from new information well, and the pace that we evolve and grow is very slow. And at worst we become misinformed as we take false information to be true (e.g. Fox News, Russian pandering online).

It's great that you always assume someone has the ability to learn, and I'd agree with you. Although that has us arrive at the issue that many instead assume that this type of person is intentionally malicious, 'stupid', 'unconscionable'.

Those would be stereotypes. It's easy to throw words like that around without having to define what they mean. Especially when direct conversation is avoidable. It demonstrates a lack of interest in the value of reasoned discussion.

As for my own opinion, I'd argue that at a fundamental level this attitude we often have is harmful. Slinging invective at people who don't respond rationally to argument isn't likely going to improve the situation. And beyond that it may be the case that many of us don't control our own beliefs, and so philosophically, spiritually, there is a path toward acceptance there - 'this is how the world is'.

That's what needs to be avoided. That's why we still need to have faith in reason and diplomacy rather than descending into cultural or racial prejudice. Humanism versus Nationalism.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Perhaps because I coached youths for many years when my own kids were growing up I was able to observe the vast differences in ability among these kids. Those differences in ability were primarily attributable to genetic luck, no doubt about it. Great differences in speed, quickness, agility, awareness, size, strength, weight, maturity, etc. were immediately apparent. Some kids are far more coachable than others. Some kids work much harder to achieve half as much as those with natural talent. Some kids are withdrawn and take extra effort while some kids are natural leaders. Some kids are terrified of playing certain positions while other kids want that position every game. These differences in athleticism are real.

Differences in cognitive makeup and ability must therefore be just as real and obviously are. The differences we cannot see that are persons' brains must be just as real as the external differences we witness in people of vastly different physical makeups. Why would any of us deny something so intuitively obvious and quantifiable. The brain is physical, not something mystical. It's a machine with capabilities. Sure, any person can be handicapped by upbringing or environment but people are still vastly different in what they bring to their varied environments. Is someone going to argue that we're all the same machine? We're not. No two of us are the same.

 

[Treedbear]

I agreed with what you said in your first response:

...
Having sympathy is an emotional discussion. It really doesn't solve anything whether we have sympathy or not. It's good to see yourself in another person's place and then try to help them, sympathy or no sympathy, based on what is best for humans and earth.

But the OP was addressing the following context:

...
But let's go through a thought experiment:

We take the most extreme Trump supporter, racist, nationalist, malevolent towards certain groups.

Is it possible to feel sympathy for a person like this? Do they deserve that sympathy? And if not, how should we treat someone like that?

The main difference between the ability to reason and athletic, physical, and even motivational characterisitcs is that intelligence and the ability to reason is what defines the human species. It's what sets us apart from the rest of the animal world. So to discriminate against people for what they lack in this area is one step removed from calling them sub-human. It's the target applied in all campaigns to denigrate a people. That's why I think it's to be avoided as an issue.

...
Differences in cognitive makeup and ability must therefore be just as real and obviously are. The differences we cannot see that are persons' brains must be just as real as the external differences we witness in people of vastly different physical makeups. Why would any of us deny something so intuitively obvious and quantifiable. The brain is physical, not something mystical. It's a machine with capabilities. Sure, any person can be handicapped by upbringing or environment but people are still vastly different in what they bring to their varied environments. Is someone going to argue that we're all the same machine? We're not. No two of us are the same.

Are we to look at Trump's apologists as all the same? Brand them all as mentally defective deviants with no redeeming value? Is 42% of America genetically incapable of reason? If the problem is a genetic defect rather than cultural that allows someone like Trump to undermine our democracy then it's probably pandemic to the vast majority of the human species. Come to think of it, you might actually turn out to be right.