A contact of mine shared a link to this article about that new person being in charge of national education in that big country across the pond ‘teaching the value of ignorance‘.
That title really made me think – first of all about: What is a value? Still not exactly sure how to define it for myself. Certainly a way of looking at things, a deeply-held conviction, something that is very important to someone, a ‘positive attachment’?
I’ve actually heard it from one or the other person here in Germany: ‘I am *proud* to be ignorant.’ Confusing for me. You see, I am hopeless at physics and chemistry and IT (and math, accordingly) – while other people are passionate about those and eagerly pursue the topics (I admire them).
But that does not make me *proud* of being ignorant in those fields. Rather, it makes me humble. Yes, I also avoid the topics instead of attempting to educate myself further, although maybe I should – because I lack interest and find it difficult. Perhaps, if I had an interest, I would find it less difficult? But I am glad other people understand this stuff, and am happy to trust them with it. Otherwise, a lot of things just would not work, like for example housing, transportation, health care, and my laptop, only for starters. And I depend very much on all of those to work; also, I have had *mostly good experiences* with them. ‘Science can be trusted’ – to an extent.
In analogy now: If I was to find politics and/or multiculturalism and/or globalization and/or complexity and/or uncertainty too difficult – plus was not interested in them (can’t blame you, with my own lack of interest in physics, chemistry, IT, math – perhaps you’re more gifted than I in those) – would I also want to call myself ‘proud to be ignorant’ and call ignorance my ‘value’? Would I have a need to be self-protective in that way, otherwise feeling over-extended in front of the challenge? Because I’d have to push and force myself to get interested in, deal with and understand stuff that I don’t have a deep passion for … which I would find stressful, as is human nature?
Would I then rather trust people who I assume know this stuff better? If I had made good experiences with how they took care of these issues on my behalf?
But what if my experiences were bad?? Repeatedly? Would I say: “Who the heck around here can I still trust with this stuff that I don’t understand? Who can take care of it?” If I don’t have sufficient understanding of the subject matter, who am I to know how to choose the right people to take care of politics, multiculturalism, globalization, complexity and uncertainty on my behalf?
If you asked me to choose one surgeon over the other, one person in charge of iCloud security over another, one engineer building bridges or tunnels over another – how would I go about that? I would not have informed criteria regarding their professional competencies, and they could tell/’sell’ me pretty much whatever they wanted – I’d probably go with who I happen to know, who my friends recommended, or who I spontaneously liked better, just in terms of chemistry …
Does this make sense? And do you see my point?
Happy to discuss …