[From Gregg Wierzbicki (970804.1000 EST)]
Bill Powers (970730.1344 MDT)
Gregg Wierzbicki (970730.1100EST)--
From time to time I wonder how to determine the extent to which we
(individually, in groups, or in general) use language to maintain our
state of ignor(e)ance (a.k.a bliss?), or, if you prefer, control for
not-learning something which someone else might like us to learn. How
might I test whether I am controlling to be open to another's
verbal/written/non-verbal input; OR resisting (if not ignoring) input
from them? How might I test the same for someone else? Any
interest/ideas?
A lot of interest, I should think -- it's problem that PCTers run into
frequently (and are sometimes accused of having themselves).
I know that I often have to ignore things I might want to learn simply
because there are so many fields in which PCT would have applications. I've
tried learning something about psychology, linguistics, neurology,
biochemistry, sociology, physiology, management, information theory,
ethology, psychotherapy, economics, education, evolution, and control
theory (classical and "modern"), just to have intelligent conversations
with people who already are open to PCT.
OK. But, I suspect you are in a minority of miniscule proportions. Rather I
suspect that extremely few of us, in the general population, would likely
make such an effort. So, I'm trying to focus attention on the development
of a test to determine whether/when individuals, and/or groups in general,
build systems & institutions to hide themselves comfortably from, if not the
truth, then each other's approach to it.
But it's really impossible; only a
person who has been immersed in such fields for years and has concentrated
on knowing their history and content could decide just how PCT would apply,
if at all.
How so? Maybe those of us who act aggressively to "know" the history and
content of our fields are merely becoming more rigid (institutionalized,
socially allied) in the manner(s) in which we attempt to remain ignorant of
the possibility that we are wrong! And, isn't it possible that we have
neatly developed referreed journals, peer review, tenure, drug
certifications, manufacturer licensing agreements etc. to afford some
security in our position in any given community?
So for the most part I have to be content with superficial
knowlege, and remain ignorant of most of the details.
OK. But, if you would allow that whatever knowledge exists at all, only
exists in the heads of living people, and allow that few individuals take
(have?) the time to insert themselves deeply into a broad range of abstract
and obscure fields of inquiry, and further allow for the possibility that
some of our actions in coming to 'know' a limited number of fields of inquiry
might be for the purpose described above (to remain ignorant of our
ignorance), then isn't it possible (likely?) that we are all just
superficially knowledgeable...at best?
Now, my concern about this state of affairs derives from my suspicion that,
if this is so, then I think PCT might suggest that we have created a society
which controls to maintain superficially knowledgeable citizens. Of course,
in so saying, I have not said much that hasn't been said by many others
before. However, explicit here is the suggestion that we are acting in order
to control for this (superficiality of knowlegdge) as outcome. What needs
more work, I think, is the manner in which we test this suggestion.
And I have to resist consciously the urge to dive into the journals....I
should probably add that it also helps, in resisting this urge, actually to
read some of those >journals from cover to cover.
And, through such resistance, what are you attempting to control? How might
someone test for the control variable here?
I suppose you could argue that the deliberate seeking of ignorance is just
a personality trait, but I don't think that idea is either useful or
likely. I think we seek ignorance when we fear that knowledge will hurt us,
even if the knowledge we fear is simply the confirmation that we're too
dumb to understand it. Any change in a world-view is upsetting,
particularly if we have no confidence in being able to pick up the pieces
afterward and still have control of our lives. We avoid the chance of
disturbances because of what we _imagine_ will happen as a result. In
imagination, everything that could conceivably go wrong _does_ go wrong, so
we discourage ourselves from even simple undertakings, like learning
something new.
OK. But, how might we test these assertions? That's where I think I'm
stumped. Or, perhaps thats where I've allowed myself to become stumped in
order not to challenge my own level of ignorance....
Thanks.
Gregg