There is a saying: “never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.” It is often useful to defuse one’s anger.
But is it true?
It does seem to me that groups and nations pursue obviously bad policies, insist on obvious untruths, and seem impervious to explanations. One obvious example: the persistent insistence that there are mass graves of indigenous children murdered in the old residential schools. Another: that Trump claimed Nazis or white supremacists were “good people.”
Are they simply ignorant of the facts, only repeating what they have heard? No; if told the facts, they do not counter them; they just ignore or suppress them. They react in anger. Can it be that they don’t understand what is being said?
Let’s assume that people are this stupid. They just can’t make logical connections. Wouldn’t the obvious solution, then, be to select out those with the highest IQ’s, and have them run things?
This is more or less what Plato proposed in the Republic.
So should we turn things over to the “Experts,” presumably weeded and fostered based on their intelligence and knowledge by the universities?
No; these academics seem more prone to believe obvious nonsense than the general public. This has long been ovserved: the “ivory tower” syndrome. Academics is an echo chamber in which delusions can be mutually reinforced indefinitely without ever being tainted by reality.
How about selecting for raw IQ?
And this is the premise on which Mensa, the high-IQ society, was founded.
And it did not work, does not work, either. On any given issue, you will never get a consensus among Mensans. They are about as likely to believe the latest obvious untruth as the general public. And hold to it with the same energy. A meeting of Mensans is like herding cats.
(Of course, I face my own logical problem here. How can I be sure it is the other guy who is clinging to an untruth despite evidence? Am I smarter than the Mensans?
I recall this little poem by Albert Einstein: "A thought that often makes me hazy:/Is it them, or am I crazy?"
But all I can do is look at the evidence and arguments, and use my own judgement. I think it is conclusive if the other side does not counter. Although it might also be that they find the matter so obvious that arguing it is tiresome.)
It seems to me it cannot be incompetence, in most cases. It is deliberate self-delusion. Most people simply believe or try to believe what they want to believe. They believe whatever they find most comfortable or most in their interests to believe, and ignore both the truth and the general good.
I daresay women are more prone to do this than men… They will cover an ugly situation with a pretty word, and it will all be okay.
A case in point I noticed recently: a YouTube psychiatrist advising that you should cut all contact with any relative or spouse who voted for Trump, telling them “How could you vote against my livelihood?” (Sic: surely she meant interests).
This presupposes that everyone should vote only for their own self-interest. (Given that it is also in one’s self-interest not to alienate one’s relative or spouse.)
And so, I arrive at an important truth about the world: most people are delusional, and people are morally responsible for their delusions.
Which explains why we do instinctively think insanity is not a disease, but a moral failing.
The Bible knows this. This is why, for example, it makes acceptance of the dominion of God the first commandment. Not to see this, to be atheist or agnostic or polytheist, is a deliberate delusion.
And this, according to the Bible, is the litmus test for heaven: are you seeking truth, or not?
No comments:
Post a Comment