Feeding My Ignorance

One of the great benefits of the so-called social networks online is that you become exposed to a vast variety of perspectives - different points of view that were we to limit ourselves to our 'normal' circles would never get close to penetrating our hectic schedules and overworked brains.

...

The viewing of perspectives can result in all sorts of reaction - pleasure that someone else thinks the same way as you - intrigue at finding a possible new way of looking at an old situation - the 'eureka effect' that is generated when the solution to something that has been puzzling you is suddenly clarified - and occasionally the "I can't believe he just said that" which comes when the espoused viewpoint is so far away from your own mindset that it is completely incomprehensible.

Of course, even the latter can be extremely beneficial - either because it confirms that you are not the only stupid person around or because it causes you to think about the "why" behind the seemingly ill-informed statements.  One of the latter occured this morning as I browsed through an extremely interesting thread.

The discussion was on the reasons why "listening' is seemingly very scarce skill these days.  Something that is even more perplexing when you consider that the rate of generation of "stuff" on the www means that the amount of material that is requiring someone to "listen" is increasing at an alarming rate.  I am not unaware of the irony that here I am - writing this and further increasing the amount of material looking for 'a listener'!!

(on the other hand, perhaps it doesn't need one - may come back to this aspect, but this current post is not about whether there needs to be an 'observer' for any published material - rather it is concentrating on the perceived lack of the skill)

A lot of online discussion is rife with "confirmation bias" - which does have its uses of course in ensuring that we have a reasonably 'stable' view of the world around us and don't become racked with indecision over what to 'believe' and what not to.  So it was in this discussion - most of the contributors were in violent agreement that:

•  listening is a good thing
• we don't listen enough
• there is much that is worth listening to

The along comes this post:

Listeners are losers. They are at a lower rank of hierarchy. Dominating predators tell and do. A student who is lacking in knowledge listens. The master who knows, tells how things are. Silence is submission. Silence is cowardice. If you have something to say, if you have the guts to stand up, say it.

Wow!!  Now there is a contrary point of view.  (It is difficult to tell whether this is simply someone taking an extreme view for the purpsoe of trolling or whether they truly believe what they are saying!)

My immediate reaction was - surely no one really thinks like that - then that changed to - clearly this person does - and slowly it dawned - there are probably a lot of people who have this attitude.

For me - the important thing when facing something so 'opposite' to my own world view is to ensure that - on closer inspection - it does not contain anything that could sway my thinking.  I am, therefore, listening - the question that is then raised is - am I listening as "a stduent who is lacking in knowledge" as the post suggests is the only valid reason for listening?

Hmmmm...

I guess that the bottom line is that if you "know everything" then listening to what someone else says becomes simply a waste of time and effort.  You cannot argue with that.
What you can argue about is whether it is reasonable to be sufficiently arrogant as to claim that you do indeed "know everything".  Now a quick glance at the title of this blog will give you a bit of a clue as to where I stand on this - I am firmly in the center of the camp that would say that you cannot know everything.  No one has that capacity.

I could at this point appeal to Heisenberg - he pointed out that you cannot 'know' precisely the value of both of some pairs of physical properties.  Whilst this is specifically about precision it demonstrates one instance of where we CANNOT know something.  For me, as soon as this door of uncertainty is open, there can be no way that "knowing everything" can be claimed.

Going from there - if there is 'something' (no matter how small) that we do not know then that leads to the next stage which is that we do not know what it is that we do not know - here we go again - back to Donald Rumsfeld's infamous "unknown unknowns"!!

So - we are ALL students in this respect - we ALL lack knowledge - and we can never be sure what it is that we lack knowledge in!!   Even when cast in the role of the "master" (as in the above quote) we SHOULD be constantly aware of our limitations in this regard - yes, by all means, tell and do - but you must continue to be open to the possibility that there are gaps in your knowledge.  We must ALL be listeners.

One of my ex-colleagues told me that when we first were working together he was a little bit frustrated that I would sometimes sit in meetings and not contribute much.  Then, he told me, he learned that I was performing a rather important role - whilst everyone else was going round in circles, arguing over irrelevant details, talking at cross purposes (and so on) I would be pulling everything together and, towards the end of the meeting, would be able to pull things together - reconciling differences, recognising conflicts and generally being much more aware of EVERYBODY's point of view.

Silence is far from submission and is certainly not cowardice.  Sometimes meetings are unnecessarily extended simply because everyone wants to "say their piece" - even when it has been said (albeit in a different accent) by several people already.  Sometimes, silence is just not bothering to state the obvious, sometimes it is simply indicating tacit agreement with all that everyone else is saying.

That is not to say that we must accept all silence - that same ex-colleague would often explicitly invite some sort of contribution from me (once he new my modus operandi) either to quell some disagreement or to do some sort of summary.  Such encouragement is sometimes necessary - as is the encouragement of those who really are too timid to speak.  We must all be aware of the fact that circumstances can leave some people feeling relatively 'insignificant' in a given setting, others are - by nature - timid and nervous about contributing.  It would do more hamr than good to label such people as "losers" or exhibiting "cowardice"!

So - I have listened to that post - I have convinced myself that I do not agree with any part of it - maybe except "if you have something to say, say it" - that only works if someone is listening though.........