BF2S Forums Operational Ignorance

As this part applies to the thread in general:

I am not so much saying that everyone should turn a blind eye to the outside world as saying the way we approach what we know about the outside world and therefore how we see ourselves in that world is skewed to such an extent that we become dysfunctional. Everyone seems to have latched on to the third paragraph, but it's the fourth that's important. We should be examining our world with the notion of learning the circumstances that have caused current events instead of transfixing our short attention to events that are current and ultimately inapplicable to our own lives.

Varegg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The election was just one example ... there are many more, too many for you to just leave it as a minor source of importance ...

This is exactly my point though. An election is the only instance where an individual's perception of the outside world has even a marginal influence on that outside world. Being informed about things like wars in the Middle East, the economic downturn, or anything else you might see on then nightly news or read in a newspaper doesn't influence those events at all. They are bigger than everyone who is just reading about them, not interacting with them. It wouldn't matter one bit if everyone did completely tune out to the news, because the whole idea that "knowledge is power" is a naive concept abused by the media to create an entire industry revolving around itself. They inform people because people need to be informed, and for no other reason. The consequences of the informed people are nil.

Okay ... elections is one we agree on ... how about news that sparks protest marches and demonstrations, that surely has some impact outside your own person does it not?

News about economics ... I know about an entire industry that can ruin an entire nation by its actions based on the news ... was close to happen just months ago ...

I get your point FM but I think you brush off the impact a little to lightly ...

But see these impacts are not valid reactions that are the result of a concerted effort by people to change things for the better, they are just the mindless aftermath of 7 billion headless chickens running about. The issue is people watch the news and don't react effectively to it, not that they don't react at all.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its important to know whats going on to take decisions and also to be able to keep politicians in line.
Is now a good time to join the Army?
Buy a Hummer?
Invest in Gold futures?

Or should we sit back and let govt decide whats right for us?

We must invade Iran cuz dey is evul mooslums - Duh Okeydokey.

The government has already decided what is best for you. You don't matter in the least until the next election at the earliest - until that time you're not even a drop in the bucket.

What's going on in the "being informed" sense really doesn't have a lot to do with any of those decisions, and that's somewhat my point. You can know what the trends are for gold without knowing why. You can know what gas prices are at and what they likely will be without knowing why. You can even find out what the chances are of being deployed (as well as you ever can) without knowing why. It seems to me that someone could get along just fine without knowing a damn thing about the ways of the world outside their town (hence the title).

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Most people like to know things, whether it affects them enough to actually 'see' for themselves or not. It's almost just human nature to want to be kept informed on what's going on. Or you could say, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who deliberately does not want to know anything.

This doesn't justify the desire to be kept informed.

Innate human curiosity isn't enough of a reason?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It wouldn't matter one bit if everyone did completely tune out to the news, because the whole idea that "knowledge is power" is a naive concept abused by the media to create an entire industry revolving around itself.

Scientia potentia est.  If you are uneducated, your ability to influence the world around you is greatly diminished.  If you are educated and have some idea of what is going on around you, all you need is will.

Nice to see you Toenails.

Innate curiosity is still a reason, not a justification.

You need smarts, drive, awareness, and an idea of how to get things done, which is what I find most lack. By most casual definitions there are plenty of people that meet the first three conditions, just as there are a lot of scientists that are very capable in their field that produce a ton of research. It takes a different type of person to understand how to put that research into practice, a different type of intelligence.

The problem is we can't process the information we are given about our world into useful ideas about where we stand in the world and how to use and/or expand our influence.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The government has already decided what is best for you. You don't matter in the least until the next election at the earliest - until that time you're not even a drop in the bucket.

What's going on in the "being informed" sense really doesn't have a lot to do with any of those decisions, and that's somewhat my point. You can know what the trends are for gold without knowing why. You can know what gas prices are at and what they likely will be without knowing why. You can even find out what the chances are of being deployed (as well as you ever can) without knowing why. It seems to me that someone could get along just fine without knowing a damn thing about the ways of the world outside their town (hence the title).

I just finished a book about Warren Buffett and his investment style. He does essentially this. He doesn't follow the stock market, doesn't pay attention to what's going on in the economy and doesn't care who is politically in power. It's irrelevant to him and if he did pay attention, feels that it would lead him to make irrational decisions. He bases all of his actions and chooses all of his investments based on hard numbers coupled with a basic understanding of how the people who's companies he's investing in operate. He has a list of about twelve criteria before purchase and to eliminate as much risk as possible, will not invest unless almost all of that criteria is met. He also stresses staying within your own level of competence. If you don't understand how a bank works, don't invest in a bank.

So yes, living in a bubble can work to your benefit because it cuts out emotion and leaves you to think rationally instead of reacting to the world around you. You gain control over your life instead of constantly being reactionary.

SenorToenails wrote:

It's a reason and a justification.  I work in the scientific field right now to satisfy my curiosity.  Does that count as a justification?  I think so since it certainly explains my actions.  I read the news (no television for me) to keep an idea of whats going on in the world, but I realize that I cannot change what has already happened

There is a big difference between a reason and a justification. A reason explains why you do something that you do, while a justification gives a good reason for doing something that you do. We do things all the time for perfectly explicable reasons, but that doesn't mean we are right to do them by some/most/all standards.

SenorToenails wrote:

Today's current events are yesterdays history, and to quote Truman..."Those who do not ... understand history are doomed to repeat it."  Has man ever been good at not repeating history?

If we are continually repeating the mistakes of the past, then clearly something is wrong with how we are examining them. We are making the mistake of the past of continually making the mistakes of the past - so how do we fix it?

As I have been saying we change our idea of what the news is. The nightly news should read less like an encyclopedia and more like Aesop's Fables.

JohnG@lt wrote:

He bases all of his actions ... on hard numbers coupled with a basic understanding of how the people ... operate.

This.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

It's a reason and a justification.  I work in the scientific field right now to satisfy my curiosity.  Does that count as a justification?  I think so since it certainly explains my actions.  I read the news (no television for me) to keep an idea of whats going on in the world, but I realize that I cannot change what has already happened

There is a big difference between a reason and a justification. A reason explains why you do something that you do, while a justification gives a good reason for doing something that you do. We do things all the time for perfectly explicable reasons, but that doesn't mean we are right to do them by some/most/all standards.

A good reason is awfully subjective.

I am only asking that you take an objective look at what you gain from being informed as that means to us now, and then decide if there is truly any subjective benefit.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Today's current events are yesterdays history, and to quote Truman..."Those who do not ... understand history are doomed to repeat it."  Has man ever been good at not repeating history?

If we are continually repeating the mistakes of the past, then clearly something is wrong with how we are examining them. We are making the mistake of the past of continually making the mistakes of the past - so how do we fix it?

As I have been saying we change our idea of what the news is. The nightly news should read less like an encyclopedia and more like Aesop's Fables.

How can that be?  Aesop's Fables have a moral or some other meaning...not all bits of news have that.  Car accidents, natural disasters, etc... just don't lend themselves to anything more than fact-like presentation.

I would say that most bits of information that need to be disseminated are the type that have a moral of some sort. Why do you need to know about a car accident? Why do you need to know about a natural disaster through the news?

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

He bases all of his actions ... on hard numbers coupled with a basic understanding of how the people ... operate.

This.

I've always thought that those who are smart enough to be in positions of power in the government are also smart enough to know they don't want the job.  And those who have always wanted to be politicians are likely the very last people you want for the job.  Warren Buffet obviously knows what he is doing, and has done very well for himself in life.  If more people thought like him, the world would probably be very different...but that kind of thoughtful decision making is not likely to be found in the average person.

Who you want in power and who is in power are two very different things. I hope you realize that.

FM:
A waited a little while to figure out what side you were on for this one.

I see opportunity in being informed.  If you know something, you can create something worthwhile.  For instance, as a CPA I make my living by knowing more than my clients.

In other words, increase the size of your bubble.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why do you need to know if your relatives are dead? You want to know, but you don't need to know and knowing doesn't do them any good.
Why do you need to know the results of a sports game? Of a crime that was committed? If you aren't directly involved, we don't need to know. The information is entirely useless.

Alrighty then.  Is that also implying that most education is also useless?  I mean, I don't need to know the medieval history of Europe or how to deal with logarithms or how to anything like that, right?  I merely want to know...which isn't the same as 'need'.

If I want to have a bubble of people I influence, I would include my family in that.  If they were killed or isolated or something in some way, that certainly impacts my 'bubble'.  And you were just telling Pug about bubbles, right?  Maybe that information directly pertains to my bubble, and has nothing to do with yours.  I can retain the knowledge...and you can filter it out.  Why let someone else make that decision for you?

But John it's not as catchy!

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why do you need to know if your relatives are dead? You want to know, but you don't need to know and knowing doesn't do them any good.
Why do you need to know the results of a sports game? Of a crime that was committed? If you aren't directly involved, we don't need to know. The information is entirely useless.

Alrighty then.  Is that also implying that most education is also useless?  I mean, I don't need to know the medieval history of Europe or how to deal with logarithms or how to anything like that, right?  I merely want to know...which isn't the same as 'need'.

If I want to have a bubble of people I influence, I would include my family in that.  If they were killed or isolated or something in some way, that certainly impacts my 'bubble'.  And you were just telling Pug about bubbles, right?  Maybe that information directly pertains to my bubble, and has nothing to do with yours.  I can retain the knowledge...and you can filter it out.  Why let someone else make that decision for you?

History is pretty useless for anything except a moral lol. Logs can be pretty useless too depending on your career. A hairdresser certainly shouldn't waste their time.

It's not about limiting information, it's about our approach to information.

It's not like information about crime or natural disasters shouldn't exist, just that we shouldn't spend an hour a day looking at them. As we get better and better at filtering the vast amounts of information available on the internet, it only makes sense that this type of personalized information will be easier and easier to come by. True news should only be about what is immediately relevant to us, nightly national dialogue should be about methods and solutions not previous results.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pub wrote:

I see opportunity in being informed.  If you know something, you can create something worthwhile.  For instance, as a CPA I make my living by knowing more than my clients.

In other words, increase the size of your bubble.

So long as there is a bubble, yeah. The way things are right now though people don't see any boundaries, they want the whole world to be their bubble. It's not reasonable and it's a mentally crippling attitude.

Sorry, increase the size of your sphere of influence.

If it's not reasonable and leads to an uneducated lot...how are you going to use this to your advantage?  aka PT Barnum - sucker born every minute.