Why isn't knowledge valued in society?

[Reon]

This makes me cringe. Sorry, video games and body building may make you happy, but they don't make you a good voter (except these friends probably won't vote, so that's a relief).

"It is impossible to be wise without knowledge" Are you implying that video games and body building take no knowledge? Body building typically takes a immense understanding of nutrition and proper training to even amount to anything in the real world, let alone be it personal satisfaction. It's not as simple as just lifting a weight for 5 years and growing huge. It involves knowing practical knowledge about what type of food you need to eat, when and also how you need to exercise.

Video games in itself is basically a test of some sorts, think of it as mental masturbation. You are taught a skill by a video game, then you are asked to use that skill until you get to a point where you have mastered it, you are then given a "boss" to beat; to show that you have truly learned that skill. Then you move on, gain another skill, use the two skills in combination, and keep going until you win. Some games even teach you about the world and such. This isn't even including the strifes some gamers go through to truly learn about a game, learning how the system works, and even hacking and doing a bit of programming to understand the experience better or make a completely new one. Also the basic skills that you need to know just be able to play the game (You need to know basic english and sometimes advanced, depending on what you're playing. You also need to know some math to be able to know how much money you have, how much you're spending, if you really need a piece of equipment, etc) By that standard, is chess useless as well? Sodoku? They don't have an intrinsic intellectual property to them. The mental properties that a person uses in them can be transferred to other subjects, thus making them somewhat useful.

What makes a society dynamic, healthy, and growing is curious citizens, people who want to learn because everything is interesting.

Here's the thing, where are these citizens who have both the time and effort to do such things? People want to learn what they are interested in. There's nothing wrong with that. Also, this kinda contradicts your statement earlier: If people should want to learn because everything is interesting, doesn't that include body building and video games as well (using the examples above, of course)
Besides, being a genius doesn't make you a good voter in itself. What even makes you a good voter? Studying politics? Knowing Physics? Knowing Linear Algebra? Having a degree? Having anecdotal evidence about the life that you live? I thought voting was a process in which the people, who are not all intellectuals and should NOT be blamed for that, could give their opinion on a subject.

You may think it "wiser," but it is impossible to be wise without knowledge. Being a good plumber, engineer, janitor, or doctor does not make a person wise. Having diverse interests one explores in depth because one is interested and excited by ideas is what makes a person wise. Hard, rigorous, critical thinking makes someone wise. And, given all the complex problems we have today, everyone needs some wisdom.

I don't meet that many people who are completely one faceted and only have one interest. Are you saying that someone who is extremely interested in English, Math, Social Science, and Science (to use common curriculum) is somehow more wise than an individual who is only extremely interested in Egnlish, Social Science, and Science? And only has a moderate interest in Math? Also "Hard, rigorous, critical thinking makes someone wise" is a statement that can be used to describe body building and video games (I'm a bit biased. I'm not going to lie, I don't particular care for body building but I don't like people who bash video games because they see them as pure testosterone rage. Not saying you're doing that)

Some of the responses here are a little scary to me. What I see in some is excusing a form of self-censorship, where a person decides what is "interesting" and therefore not worth learning because, after all, you don't need to know calculus or theology or art history to be an accountant. Heaven forfend that we might have to burn a few more neurological calories. This reflects the thinking of George Bush, not Ben Franklin.

People are motivated to learn thing by interest. I didn't learn psychology for the sheer extent of "I didn't already know it" and I don't think a lot of people can claim that they were in no way interested in the subject they were learning and, somehow, the managed to learn it passively. I think I understand the intent of your statement, you won't know what you're interested in unless you are actually exposed to it but if you censor yourself because you don't like (insert subject) you'll never know.

 

[athenian200]

We have a anti-intellectual bent in the U.S. yes but we do have tons of free and floating information. I'm kinda split on this subject, actually. On one hand, I've seen enough impressive people just around me in a part of the country that's not listed as the most academically promising that I tend to think that that might be a bit exaggerated by media. Obviously the knowledge and books are there for the individuals who want to learn. Now, obviously, we aren't really doing well academically. We're incredibly bad at math for example, but we are also producing quite a few decent mathematicians world wide. I don't know what to think of this discrepancy other than we really aren't trying

We all want to be worldly but I think a quite a lot of people aren't going to need to learn physics to deal with their life, and I think it's fine if they don't want too. Does that make them anti-intellectual if they choose to not take physics in light of advance classes or study in something else? Is the knowledge of being a impressive welder not that impressive?

I'm not saying everyone should learn physics, I'm talking more about learning about the world around them, actually. Being a welder is about as useful as physics, for a given occupation. I'm saying a lot of people don't bother to mentally examine themselves or the world around them, or think about why they believe something, or whether their beliefs are consistent with one another, and that's what bothers me.

So, the real question then, is perhaps, what knowledge do we overvalue or undervalue, and how can we change this so that we value what should be valued?

All knowledge is not equal.

True. I'd say that we undervalue self-knowledge, the knowledge of the nature of knowledge, and knowledge of politics and sociology.

I dont think society is going to evolve in that way. There seems to be a some evolutionary magnet that keeps pulling society back towards unskilled labor and slavery type jobs. I dont think we will ever be a society where everyone must be super skilled to survive. There will always be people who mainly clean, cook, take out trash, and make arts and crafts, and farm etc.

That's what I'm afraid of. That eventually, they'll just destroy all the technology in frustration and go back to living in the 1800's.

I think it's a dichotomy. The intellectual individuals tend to undervalue the skills and knowledge of working some particular jobs (Such as mechanic, plumbing, carpentry, and other blue collar jobs) and the individuals who have jobs that rely on physical skill and knowledge tend to undervalue intellectual individuals who are out of touch with doing stuff by hand.

Perhaps many do, but I do think there's value in those jobs. However, even those people need to know something about the world around them, and themselves... don't they?

Also, many people do not find academia to be their strong suit -- people who are physically or socially suited, for instance, may find their time better fit to exercising or creating social connections.

But what that essentially means is that people who DO find academia to be their strong suit are undervalued, and society largely demands that they develop socially and physically first in order to get to a place where they can make use of those skills. It's very imbalanced, IMO.

I'm not saying everyone must have those skills (though it would be nice), just that people should at least value them more than they do.

As for the higher-positioned intelligent people -- a degree doesn't really make a person intelligent or understanding of the problems that plague an "average" person.

You don't understand... I'm not talking about degrees. A person could graduate from medical school and still be ignorant in many ways. A degree is not the same as having knowledge, or valuing knowledge. You can do both of those things without one.

I'm glad there are people who can't stand classes, but love working with mechanics. I'm glad there are people who hate school, but love to work with people. Even if it drives me up a wall to talk to people that sound like they don't really think, and even if I would rather it be that people were more considerate about their actions and words, I'm generally glad that there is variety in the strengths of people and the way they think.

The problem is that it's not a variety. This is how the majority of people are. There aren't enough intellectuals to balance them out. I've known people who had potential in this area, and were interested in it, but decided not to develop it because they realize it's not valued.

Some of the responses here are a little scary to me. What I see in some is excusing a form of self-censorship, where a person decides what is "interesting" and therefore not worth learning because, after all, you don't need to know calculus or theology or art history to be an accountant. Heaven forfend that we might have to burn a few more neurological calories. This reflects the thinking of George Bush, not Ben Franklin.

Agreed. It seems so narrow and dangerous to me that people are choosing to think this way.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Wisdom comes more from life experience than it comes from raw knowledge.

And some very "intelligent" people don't know jack squat about politics or voting...in fact, some are so set in their ways because they think they're "right" that they don't search for more knowledge on the contradicting views of the subject, and thus don't tap into the wells of knowledge that come from objectivism towards the subject. That, and politics can be fucking confusing, and you really have to know how to study it in order to actually get anything from it...

But still. You can't force people to be curious. That, and it really isn't even so simple...there are many complex patterns of interaction that are really dependent on some people being curious, and others just accepting their ways of life. A society has to be grounded and sustained before it can become curious -- the people who aren't curious usually survive just fine, as well as the people who are.

Besides, let's not get too idealistic. Let's say everyone was curious and searching for knowledge...do you know how cluttered that would be? No one would be able to get a good education because the system would be too overwhelmed. It would be like large high schools in America -- there's less emphasis on the learning of the individual, and more emphasis on pushing them through like cattle in order to keep up with everyone. Furthermore, we'd really have a problem with people accepting their career paths -- not everyone can be a doctor or a scientist or a historian. We need receptionists, and laborers, and food workers -- those are the foundation of our society, and it's easy to overlook them because they are simply so basic to the needs of our society.

And trying to pay people to get an education would be pretty devastating to the American economy right now. Remember, we still need to pay for teachers and other staff, supplies, facilities (and all the utilities used in them), technology, etc. The money that goes to all that comes from the students, and it really wouldn't work going the other way around. Unless, of course, we had them all be completely government funded, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to pay the taxes to cover that.

In a perfect, iNtuitive-based world, everyone would be questing to know. However, this is reality, and in reality there is a balance that needs to be met. While it would be nice if more people at least appreciated knowledge, getting too idealistic about the situation will make for some misinterpretations of the roles of people in society.

 

[athenian200]

Wisdom comes more from life experience than it comes from raw knowledge.

Then why is it that more than a few adults and older people have less wisdom than much younger people? If just experiencing life taught wisdom, I think we wouldn't have this problem. Experiencing life makes you more refined, gives you a larger pool of experiences to draw from, IF you haven't stayed in the same rut for most of it.

I don't entirely disagree with this. I personally think that wisdom comes from raw knowledge COMBINED with life experience. If you have knowledge and no experience, you'll have no idea how to apply what you've learned. If you have experience and not much knowledge, you won't be able to understand the implications and context of your experiences.

And trying to pay people to get an education would be pretty devastating to the American economy right now. Remember, we still need to pay for teachers and other staff, supplies, facilities (and all the utilities used in them), technology, etc. The money that goes to all that comes from the students, and it really wouldn't work going the other way around. Unless, of course, we had them all be completely government funded, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to pay the taxes to cover that.

In a perfect, iNtuitive-based world, everyone would be questing to know. However, this is reality, and in reality there is a balance that needs to be met. While it would be nice if more people at least appreciated knowledge, getting too idealistic about the situation will make for some misinterpretations of the roles of people in society.

All you can talk about is "right now," "what works," and "not getting too idealistic." I really don't know how to respond to that, because I don't think that way. I wish could come up with something to say, but all I can do is admit that you might have a point.

I don't really understand why it's considered more important for the government to pay for healthcare and welfare over education, honestly, but I will agree that considering that's how people's values fall, we don't have much choice.

What balance needs to be met? Are you saying that in a society, knowledge is not and should not be as useful as connections to other people, or the ability to sell oneself and display competitive abilities?

I am curious as to what you what you mean by "misinterpretation of the roles of people in society." What do you think the roles of people in society are, what might get misinterpreted?

 

[Norton]

Particularly on this forum, where, ostensibly, people seem to be more interested in principles and wisdom, I prefer to use a definition of "knowledge" that goes beyond the simple rote recitation of facts. I prefer defining it in terms of general erudition, an awareness of facts, truths, or principles, through study, investigation, critical thought and contemplation. There is a certain element of judgement inherent in the definition. To me, "knowledge" is more than storing facts because, after all, a computer can do that. Humans can integrate, induce, deduce, synthesize, correlate, think abstractly and feel, and these human processes work best with a large database whose size transcends the limitations many of us place on ourselves mostly due to fear and personal limitations. Thus, those with the widest life experiences, greatest interests, and broadest learning tend to have the greatest knowledge.

Here's the thing, where are these citizens who have both the time and effort to do such things?

The average American 12 and older spends 6.1 hours watching video of which 4 hours is traditional TV viewing. Watching TV/video is a passive activity. It's not something in which to take pride.

People want to learn what they are interested in. There's nothing wrong with that. Also, this kinda contradicts your statement earlier: If people should want to learn because everything is interesting, doesn't that include body building and video games as well (using the examples above, of course) Besides, being a genius doesn't make you a good voter in itself.

I never said that knowing about and playing video games or body building are worthless. But, if they constitute the bulk of your activities, don't delude yourself into thinking you're gaining significant knowledge in the sense of erudition, judgment, and the ability to navigate diverse complexity.

What even makes you a good voter? Studying politics? Knowing Physics? Knowing Linear Algebra? Having a degree? Having anecdotal evidence about the life that you live?

Yes, all these and more. The "tea party" movement is a populist movement, which, like all populist movements, arises out of fear and ignorance, not knowledge. The anger is unfocused, the passion is diffuse, and the leaders are demagogues. Like most populist movements historically, the "tea party" movement is happening at a time of economic contraction and difficulty.

For most people (i.e., other than those who love it and/or use it), the reason to study mathematics is not because you are going to be using matrices to solve simultaneous equations, but because it is hard and requires rigorous thought. For many people, this kind of thinking is difficult and uncomfortable and contributes to their fear of mathematics. This part of the brain, like most parts, atrophies from disuse. (Indeed, functional MRI studies have shown that specific areas of the brain expand with deliberate practice of, for instance, an instrument) Similar hard intellectual activities include dissecting the arguments of a demagogue running for office. And, more generally, discovering truth.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Then why is it that more than a few adults and older people have less wisdom than much younger people? If just experiencing life taught wisdom, I think we wouldn't have this problem. Experiencing life makes you more refined, gives you a larger pool of experiences to draw from, IF you haven't stayed in the same rut for most of it.

I don't entirely disagree with this. I personally think that wisdom comes from raw knowledge COMBINED with life experience. If you have knowledge and no experience, you'll have no idea how to apply what you've learned. If you have experience and not much knowledge, you won't be able to understand the implications and context of your experiences.

I said life experience -- I never mentioned age Many adults have not experienced life as much as younger people have, especially now that the younger generations tend to have an easier and easier time doing things that older generations once had difficulty in. For instance, it might have been very difficult for our grandparents to travel and experience many cultures.

But raw knowledge does nothing if its not properly applied. Experience has us learn what works and what doesn't; what's "good" and what's "bad" (or rather, that those are not so easily defined) OUTSIDE of simple theory. A simple person without formal education can be very wise if they have experience with people and the problems that plague life.

All you can talk about is "right now," "what works," and "not getting too idealistic." I really don't know how to respond to that, because I don't think that way. I wish could come up with something to say, but all I can do is admit that you might have a point.

I don't really understand why it's considered more important for the government to pay for healthcare and welfare over education, honestly, but I will agree that considering that's how people's values fall, we don't have much choice.

What balance needs to be met? Are you saying that in a society, knowledge is not and should not be as useful as connections to other people, or the ability to sell oneself and display competitive abilities?

I am curious as to what you what you mean by "misinterpretation of the roles of people in society." What do you think the roles of people in society are, what might get misinterpreted?

Well, what I mean by balance is that there are some people that are smart, and there are some people that aren't. And this is a good thing. We need people to do very basic work as well as people to discover and invent; if everyone was very intelligent, then no one would be content doing the rather basic things that our society relies on.
And I never said being one way is more useful than the other. We definitely need knowledge in everything we do. However, different people need different knowledge. I'm saying that, in certain contexts, academic knowledge will not help a person or career as much as knowing how to sell oneself or having connections to other people. I'm also saying that we need people to know how to have connections to other people, just like we need people to discover alternate energy sources.

And what I mean by misinterpreting roles ties into what I'm saying above. To people who seek academic knowledge, the other people in society are often looked down upon. They look at people who are organizing our businesses and keeping out neighborhoods clean and ask themselves, "Why don't these people get an education?" and consider themselves superior. BUT we NEED those things. We need people to fill those roles. I, personally, admire people who keep the foundation of our society, even if they don't need to be formally educated. It's easy to see these people as something less if we consider formal education and theoretical knowledge to be the highest of all ends, and that can turn into unfair biases.

 

[athenian200]

I said life experience -- I never mentioned age Many adults have not experienced life as much as younger people have, especially now that the younger generations tend to have an easier and easier time doing things that older generations once had difficulty in. For instance, it might have been very difficult for our grandparents to travel and experience many cultures.

But raw knowledge does nothing if its not properly applied. Experience has us learn what works and what doesn't; what's "good" and what's "bad" (or rather, that those are not so easily defined) OUTSIDE of simple theory. A simple person without formal education can be very wise if they have experience with people and the problems that plague life.

Okay, that works for me.

The problem with experience is that it's often very contextual... what seems good/works or bad/nonfunctional for certain people at a certain time, might not be the same for different people at a different time.

Just a little knowledge can make that experience more useful by giving you another paradigm through which to interpret it.

Well, what I mean by balance is that there are some people that are smart, and there are some people that aren't. And this is a good thing. We need people to do very basic work as well as people to discover and invent; if everyone was very intelligent, then no one would be content doing the rather basic things that our society relies on.
And I never said being one way is more useful than the other. We definitely need knowledge in everything we do. However, different people need different knowledge. I'm saying that, in certain contexts, academic knowledge will not help a person or career as much as knowing how to sell oneself or having connections to other people. I'm also saying that we need people to know how to have connections to other people, just like we need people to discover alternate energy sources.

And what I mean by misinterpreting roles ties into what I'm saying above. To people who seek academic knowledge, the other people in society are often looked down upon. They look at people who are organizing our businesses and keeping out neighborhoods clean and ask themselves, "Why don't these people get an education?" and consider themselves superior. BUT we NEED those things. We need people to fill those roles. I, personally, admire people who keep the foundation of our society, even if they don't need to be formally educated. It's easy to see these people as something less if we consider formal education and theoretical knowledge to be the highest of all ends, and that can turn into unfair biases.

I suppose I do admire the ones that do their job well. I usually only think "they should get an education" if they perform their job like a person who is in need of one. Bosses who simply keep people in line with intimidation, cruelty, and loudness. Fast-food workers who do the sloppiest job they can get away with. Those kind of people. People that do a good job likely already have some kind of intelligence.

I don't know, perhaps I asked the question incorrectly, framing it as proclaiming formal education and theoretical pursuits to be the most important. That wasn't what I intended to convey.

I suppose I was wondering why it isn't easier for people who tend to rely on knowledge to get by in society, and why people are generally judged according to things like their social connections, proven abilities, and ambition, regardless of their talents or inclinations?

For instance, I have the ability to easily learn quite a few jobs, but I'm not given any opportunities to demonstrate this because I haven't proven myself, and I don't know anyone. I know of other people in the same situation, who largely find themselves stuck dependently complying with the wishes of someone (usually a family member) who does have those abilities in order to get by. It's almost as though having intelligence instead of the other skills is treated like a disability, when it could be an asset if it were more appreciated.

 

[Wyote]

I suppose I was wondering why it isn't easier for people who tend to rely on knowledge to get by in society, and why people are generally judged according to things like their social connections, proven abilities, and ambition, regardless of their talents or inclinations?

For instance, I have the ability to easily learn quite a few jobs, but I'm not given any opportunities to demonstrate this because I haven't proven myself, and I don't know anyone. I know of other people in the same situation, who largely find themselves stuck dependently complying with the wishes of someone (usually a family member) who does have those abilities in order to get by. It's almost as though having intelligence instead of the other skills is treated like a disability, when it could be an asset if it were more appreciated.

You have no idea how badly I wish I could get paid for all the random crap I know. People always say things to me like "how the hell do you know that? Where did you learn that?" and I just say "well it doesn't put food on the table so it's useless to me"

The world is a very showy place. People will jump all over anything and anyone that is very showy with whatever they can do. It doesn't even matter if it's something completely retarded. You could literally take some dog shit, dress it up and act like it's this amazing thing and people will crowd around.

 

[Reon]

I'm not saying everyone should learn physics, I'm talking more about learning about the world around them, actually. Being a welder is about as useful as physics, for a given occupation. I'm saying a lot of people don't bother to mentally examine themselves or the world around them, or think about why they believe something, or whether their beliefs are consistent with one another, and that's what bothers me.

I'm not saying you stated anything to that extent, it was more of an open reply. I agree some people don't bother to examine themselves and that is a problem. However, I wasn't under the impression that was what this thread was about. I used physics as an example because it is the most perceptively esoteric subject that most people know about. Most people tend to corelate being academically smart with being worldly and that's not always the case.

Perhaps many do, but I do think there's value in those jobs. However, even those people need to know something about the world around them, and themselves... don't they?

I don't think I implied anything to that extent that people do NOT need to think about the world and themselves. I was making a comment that we don't need to push people to do things they don't want to/can't do just for the sake of them being knowledgeable by our standards.

Particularly on this forum, where, ostensibly, people seem to be more interested in principles and wisdom, I prefer to use a definition of "knowledge" that goes beyond the simple rote recitation of facts. I prefer defining it in terms of general erudition, an awareness of facts, truths, or principles, through study, investigation, critical thought and contemplation. There is a certain element of judgement inherent in the definition. To me, "knowledge" is more than storing facts because, after all, a computer can do that. Humans can integrate, induce, deduce, synthesize, correlate, think abstractly and feel, and these human processes work best with a large database whose size transcends the limitations many of us place on ourselves mostly due to fear and personal limitations. Thus, those with the widest life experiences, greatest interests, and broadest learning tend to have the greatest knowledge.



The average American 12 and older spends 6.1 hours watching video of which 4 hours is traditional TV viewing. Watching TV/video is a passive activity. It's not something in which to take pride.

I agree with your definition of knowledge also, could you explain what traditional TV viewing means? Is that prime time television, for example, or is it the discovery channel and lifetime? And hmm. Does watching T.V. have to necessarily be passive? it's not as intense as reading a book I suppose, because you have to place all the information together yourself, but I think it can be somewhat stimulating depending on what you're watching.

I never said that knowing about and playing video games or body building are worthless. But, if they constitute the bulk of your activities, don't delude yourself into thinking you're gaining significant knowledge in the sense of erudition, judgment, and the ability to navigate diverse complexity.

I exaggerated your statement, I understand now. Like you said, focusing on one thing or group of things doesn't make you wise.

Yes, all these and more. The "tea party" movement is a populist movement, which, like all populist movements, arises out of fear and ignorance, not knowledge. The anger is unfocused, the passion is diffuse, and the leaders are demagogues. Like most populist movements historically, the "tea party" movement is happening at a time of economic contraction and difficulty.

Radical political movements, no matter how misguided, are started in situations like we have now. Don't really tend to get them when things are going relatively good. In such a case, a good understanding of history and politics would help those individuals. And we need to know all of those things to be a good voter? It's great if you do, but I don't think not knowing 18th art history automatically makes you less cultured and less wise than someone else. Idunno. I'm just trying to figure out where the line is. From un-wise to wise.

For most people (i.e., other than those who love it and/or use it), the reason to study mathematics is not because you are going to be using matrices to solve simultaneous equations, but because it is hard and requires rigorous thought. For many people, this kind of thinking is difficult and uncomfortable and contributes to their fear of mathematics. This part of the brain, like most parts, atrophies from disuse. (Indeed, functional MRI studies have shown that specific areas of the brain expand with deliberate practice of, for instance, an instrument) Similar hard intellectual activities include dissecting the arguments of a demagogue running for office. And, more generally, discovering truth.

There are a lot of things that require rigorous thought. Why is one task (Such as math) have more objective importance than a good game of othello/reversi? I'll admit, I'm not the best at math but I've been cracking open my calculus book just to prep myself for college. That's my choice. If a person in a similar situation decided to brush up on his english skills, I wouldn't say that he less wise than me because he is trying to become more advanced in something he is interested in. Hmm. I know that certain activities can structure the brain quite differently than others who don't participate in the activity. For example: String musicians in particular tend to develop a bit of grey matter to complement their fingering skills.

(My labtop is acting funny, so I just posted my main thoughts)

 

[athenian200]

You have no idea how badly I wish I could get paid for all the random crap I know. People always say things to me like "how the hell do you know that? Where did you learn that?" and I just say "well it doesn't put food on the table so it's useless to me"

That's exactly the kind of mentality I don't appreciate seeing cultivated in our society. "It doesn't put food on the table, it's useless." Or that knowledge is "random crap" rather than anything useful.

I can't imagine that's been beneficial for you, or that it's helped you do anything other than go into a more jaded/cynical mode and avoid learning.

The world is a very showy place. People will jump all over anything and anyone that is very showy with whatever they can do. It doesn't even matter if it's something completely retarded. You could literally take some dog shit, dress it up and act like it's this amazing thing and people will crowd around.

That's exactly why the world upsets me.

 

[Wyote]

That's exactly the kind of mentality I don't appreciate seeing cultivated in our society. "It doesn't put food on the table, it's useless." Or that knowledge is "random crap" rather than anything useful.

I can't imagine that's been beneficial for you, or that it's helped you do anything other than go into a more jaded/cynical mode and avoid learning.



That's exactly why the world upsets me.

Yep, it upset me for quite a while too. But I realized it does actually benefit me. Not in a direct Information = Money sense, but in that it has made me able to relate to all sorts of people. It still pisses me off that I can't get a dollar every time I answer something nobody else has a clue about, and it frustrates me to no end that people have such an insatiable desire for extravagance/entertainment. There is very little humility in the world, but I have less pent up blame now that I have a better grasp of how really effed up everything is, socially, economically, psychologically ect ect.

I wouldn't go so far as saying it makes me incompatible with the world, but it sure feels like it sometimes. Seems to be a common feeling for everyone though.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Well, remember that things are only useful to the world if they can be readily applied. Yeah, it's nice to have talents and know stuff, but if that doesn't do anyone any good, then it's not important to society. On an individual sense, it's important, but you can't run the world through individual talents. Things have to work together.

And people flock to things that seem interesting and showy because, well, how else are you supposed to attract attention? If something is uninteresting, then no one's going to care about it. If you can't show someone your knowledge or useful skills, then no one's going to care about them because they are simply unaware of it or its useful application.


I can understand where you guys are coming from, but from a big-picture sense, it just doesn't do society any good if knowledge is not applicable or available. That's not to say it can't do any good on an individual sense or even to society in the long run, but due to the complexity of society, it's difficult to incorporate otherwise.

 

[athenian200]

Well, remember that things are only useful to the world if they can be readily applied. Yeah, it's nice to have talents and know stuff, but if that doesn't do anyone any good, then it's not important to society. On an individual sense, it's important, but you can't run the world through individual talents. Things have to work together.

That's true. I suppose I wasn't thinking of that.

And people flock to things that seem interesting and showy because, well, how else are you supposed to attract attention? If something is uninteresting, then no one's going to care about it. If you can't show someone your knowledge or useful skills, then no one's going to care about them because they are simply unaware of it or its useful application.

Well, it is difficult to get people's attention, and even more difficult to get them to make use of your services over someone they know, or who is more like themselves. That's probably why advertisers make so much.

I can understand where you guys are coming from, but from a big-picture sense, it just doesn't do society any good if knowledge is not applicable or available. That's not to say it can't do any good on an individual sense or even to society in the long run, but due to the complexity of society, it's difficult to incorporate otherwise.

I suppose it isn't useful in a big picture sense, because it would cost too many resources to find and make use of the people who can't promote themselves. If 90% of people are good enough at that to get by, and many of the others find a way to sponge off of someone who is good enough... I suppose so.

Congratulations, gloomy-optimist. You've won the argument.

I now think the problem lies with me, and my inability to perform in the manner that society expects. I accept that I'm lacking important life skills such as self-promotion, and am fairly handicapped by my lack of social connections. I probably have a lot to learn, and may well need to depend on others in my family for a long time to come, due to my problems.

I still think there are problems with society, but this is no longer one that I actually believe is a problem. I think that my own problems caused me to perceive this as a problem.

Thank you, I suppose.

 

[Wyote]

Gloomy's argument is based on the premise that attracting attention is a necessary part of living. It is for profiteering, and the world as it stands tells us that profiteering is the route to happiness and success, basic survival even.

I disagree, in that I recognize this is how it must be currently but I do not feel it is the only option and there are quite possibly better ones.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I now think the problem lies with me, and my inability to perform in the manner that society expects. I accept that I'm lacking important life skills such as self-promotion, and am fairly handicapped by my lack of social connections. I probably have a lot to learn, and may well need to depend on others in my family for a long time to come, due to my problems.

I still think there are problems with society, but this is no longer one that I actually believe is a problem. I think that my own problems caused me to perceive this as a problem.

Thank you, I suppose.

Don't worry; like most skills, that can be learned. Self-promotion is more difficult to pick up than some things, but with practice and dedication one can learn to sell themselves and make strong social connections.

And I think you'll be fine In a societal sense, selling yourself is very important. BUT there are plenty of very happy people that don't feel a need to feed into the corporate world. While we can't expect everyone to want to learn and be knowledgeable, that doesn't mean you still can't get a lot of great personal satisfaction from it.

And yes, there are problems with society. But, there always will be. It's human nature, in a way.

Gloomy's argument is based on the premise that attracting attention is a necessary part of living. It is for profiteering, and the world as it stands tells us that profiteering is the route to happiness and success, basic survival even.

I disagree, in that I recognize this is how it must be currently but I do not feel it is the only option and there are quite possibly better ones.

My argument is based on the premise that attracting attention is a necessary part of the existence of a society. For society as a whole, what doesn't attract attention doesn't really come to the forefront and doesn't really make a difference. You can't change the world without some sort of attention from at least a segment of society; this goes for social movements as well as economic ones.

However, I totally agree that attracting attention is not important on an individual level. For a society, one must attract attention to make a difference, but it would be better if people were capable of enjoying life without the stupid little attention-getters that make people act like mindless flies to a lamp.

But, that'd be something that'd take a lot to change, unfortunately.

 

[Wyote]

...but it would be better if people were capable of enjoying life without the stupid little attention-getters that make people act like mindless flies to a lamp.

But, that'd be something that'd take a lot to change, unfortunately.

I think that's the root of all three of our problem here. Let's create a movement/tirade to stop such sillyness.

 

[Norton]

I don't think I implied anything to that extent that people do NOT need to think about the world and themselves. I was making a comment that we don't need to push people to do things they don't want to/can't do just for the sake of them being knowledgeable by our standards.

The historic motivation for public education in the US is that educated people make better citizens. If you examine the curricula of public schools, you'll see prescribed courses that every student is required to take whether he or she likes them or not. Furthermore, to pass the courses one must exhibit sufficient knowledge that is above a threshold standard. So, we do indeed push people to do things they don't want to do. As to whether a person is pushed to do things he or she "cannot do," sometimes this is the case. But, more often "cannot do" translates into "I'm afraid to try," "I'd rather do something else," "I'm lazy and don't want to apply myself," or, too often, "I don't really know how to study." In a society that is having increasing difficulty in postponing gratification, the future of educating people to be knowledgeable is tenuous.

I agree with your definition of knowledge also, could you explain what traditional TV viewing means? Is that prime time television, for example, or is it the discovery channel and lifetime? And hmm. Does watching T.V. have to necessarily be passive? it's not as intense as reading a book I suppose, because you have to place all the information together yourself, but I think it can be somewhat stimulating depending on what you're watching.

Traditional TV means that which is broadcast either through RF (radio waves) or cable.

Watching TV is passive because it does not demand a response from the brain like, for example, playing video games or reading books do. Of course, depending on a program's content there varying degrees of brain involvement.

There are a lot of things that require rigorous thought. Why is one task (Such as math) have more objective importance than a good game of othello/reversi? I'll admit, I'm not the best at math but I've been cracking open my calculus book just to prep myself for college. That's my choice. If a person in a similar situation decided to brush up on his english skills, I wouldn't say that he less wise than me because he is trying to become more advanced in something he is interested in. Hmm. I know that certain activities can structure the brain quite differently than others who don't participate in the activity. For example: String musicians in particular tend to develop a bit of grey matter to complement their fingering skills

There may be other activities that exercise the brain as much as mathematics does. Programming (i.e., writing code in C++, Java, Perl, Python, etc.) is one example, studying formal logic is another. Rhetoric, in the classical sense, may be another. I'm not sure why US schools are typically so bad at teaching math. Other countries' schools are much more effective. I believe that most people have the potential to be a lot better at math than they think, but, they are afraid of math and just don't know how to study it. Nevertheless, the general point I'm trying to make is that certain core courses are extremely important in one's education. Math seems to stand out as different, because it's abstract, whereas we know that most people prefer things to be concrete. All the more reason for them to learn about the abstract world, which is becoming increasingly abstract as evidenced by this very forum, its structure and how it's implemented.

Well, remember that things are only useful to the world if they can be readily applied. Yeah, it's nice to have talents and know stuff, but if that doesn't do anyone any good, then it's not important to society. On an individual sense, it's important, but you can't run the world through individual talents. Things have to work together.

And people flock to things that seem interesting and showy because, well, how else are you supposed to attract attention? If something is uninteresting, then no one's going to care about it. If you can't show someone your knowledge or useful skills, then no one's going to care about them because they are simply unaware of it or its useful application.


I can understand where you guys are coming from, but from a big-picture sense, it just doesn't do society any good if knowledge is not applicable or available. That's not to say it can't do any good on an individual sense or even to society in the long run, but due to the complexity of society, it's difficult to incorporate otherwise.

As someone who makes his living as an inventor, I can tell you that what "society" considers useful or applied is meaningless. First, most people are totally ignorant of things society uses continually and ubiquitously. TCP/IP, which we are all using now, is an example. It's lurks behind your screen in layers and layers, yet you don't know it or see it. Second, society is made up of individuals, thank goodness, and some of these individuals have the talent and knowledge to make things work, not only in a practical, "mechanical" sense, but also in the abstract sense of ethics, spirituality, and the arts (if you understand why the arts are important, then you'll define the words "applied," "practical," and "useful" more broadly). Third, some things are not readily "useful" at a particular time. That is, that which is abstract and theoretical at one time, can be completely useful, economically and socially, at another time. There is the conception that "pure" mathematics has no application. Well, repeatedly in history pure mathematics has been transformed into applied mathematics. For example, elliptic curves used to be considered totally abstract until the field of elliptic curve cryptography was invented, I believe, in the 1990's. Now it's a multi-million dollar market. By the way (and not to be elitist), using the term "flock" reminds me of sheep and how people who are self-limiting in knowledge, narrowly educated (through their own inaction)...but, I'd better not go there.

I now think the problem lies with me, and my inability to perform in the manner that society expects. I accept that I'm lacking important life skills such as self-promotion, and am fairly handicapped by my lack of social connections. I probably have a lot to learn, and may well need to depend on others in my family for a long time to come, due to my problems.

I still think there are problems with society, but this is no longer one that I actually believe is a problem.

Thank you, I suppose.

Society doesn't "expect." Society is manipulable by advertisers and marketers as you recognized. And, remember, you're a valid part of society, as am I and the rest of us here. INFJ's, rare though they may be, by their very nature are critical to the health of society. Some people push themselves harder than others do, some are autodidacts and continually learning, and some are lucky. But, since you can't depend on being lucky, you should always try to be more knowledgeable.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

As someone who makes his living as an inventor, I can tell you that what "society" considers useful or applied is meaningless. First, most people are totally ignorant of things society uses continually and ubiquitously. TCP/IP, which we are all using now, is an example. It's lurks behind your screen in layers and layers, yet you don't know it or see it. Second, society is made up of individuals, thank goodness, and some of these individuals have the talent and knowledge to make things work, not only in a practical, "mechanical" sense, but also in the abstract sense of ethics, spirituality, and the arts (if you understand why the arts are important, then you'll define the words "applied," "practical," and "useful" more broadly). Third, some things are not readily "useful" at a particular time. That is, that which is abstract and theoretical at one time, can be completely useful, economically and socially, at another time. There is the conception that "pure" mathematics has no application. Well, repeatedly in history pure mathematics has been transformed into applied mathematics. For example, elliptic curves used to be considered totally abstract until the field of elliptic curve cryptography was invented, I believe, in the 1990's. Now it's a multi-million dollar market. By the way (and not to be elitist), using the term "flock" reminds me of sheep and how people who are self-limiting in knowledge, narrowly educated (through their own inaction)...but, I'd better not go there.

Well, let's work with that. No, people don't understand a lot of what they use, and are completely ignorant of other things. Which, of course, opens up a market for those who are knowledgeable and can understand/create/repair these things. If everyone was knowledgeable about it, then many aspects of these industries would be nearly obsolete.
Likewise, you have those who are talented in the arts, those that are talented in the mechanical fields, and those who cross both fields. I never said that abstract application and "knowledgeable" fields were lesser or unimportant; in fact, they are equally crucial. Society is composed of many individuals, all with different talents and strengths. If everyone was abstractly-minded, society could not function. If everyone was mechanically or concretely-minded, society could not function. You could almost just use personality types to demonstrate this; we have 16 types with many different strengths and weaknesses, and together they create the world. ESFPs are not known for their academic strength (which is not to say there are not great exceptions to that); however, they can be creative powerhouses. ISTJs are not known for their great love of philosophy, but they can keep things organized and running smoothly. In the same sense, you can't expect everyone, or even the majority, of society to have a great love of abstract learning. It's just not practical.

And yes, many things that do not seem useful later turn out to be. Many things that are proven become disproven, and many things that once were no longer are. However, it takes maybe a few great minds to find a use for something; otherwise, it remains useless. When it is no longer useless, then a great amount of progress can be made from it. I'd like to also point out that it does not take a greatly educated person to find a use for something, and that each field and type of thought has many opportunities to find use in their respective area.

 

[athenian200]

There may be other activities that exercise the brain as much as mathematics does. Programming (i.e., writing code in C++, Java, Perl, Python, etc.) is one example, studying formal logic is another. Rhetoric, in the classical sense, may be another. I'm not sure why US schools are typically so bad at teaching math. Other countries' schools are much more effective. I believe that most people have the potential to be a lot better at math than they think, but, they are afraid of math and just don't know how to study it. Nevertheless, the general point I'm trying to make is that certain core courses are extremely important in one's education. Math seems to stand out as different, because it's abstract, whereas we know that most people prefer things to be concrete. All the more reason for them to learn about the abstract world, which is becoming increasingly abstract as evidenced by this very forum, its structure and how it's implemented.

I'm not sure how I've learned to think as well as I have without Mathematical skills, but I suspect being exposed to computers and the Internet had something to do with it. It's almost like being left alone to constantly study, experiment with, and repair my computer taught me to think logically. I didn't even attend school until 8th grade, but I was still more literate able to understand my assignments than most people around me.

Well, actually, I suppose it's not correct to say that I have no mathematical skills. I can convert between units, and figure out what a number is in hexadecimal, octal, or binary fairly easily. I'm not too bad with basic operations, or understanding basic problems in an Algebraic manner. The problem for me always comes when they introduce more complex concepts like matrices and irrational numbers.

Society doesn't "expect." Society is manipulable by advertisers and marketers as you recognized. And, remember, you're a valid part of society, as am I and the rest of us here. INFJ's, rare though they may be, by their very nature are critical to the health of society. Some people push themselves harder than others do, some are autodidacts and continually learning, and some are lucky. But, since you can't depend on being lucky, you should always try to be more knowledgeable.

You're right, too. That's why I'm planning to go out and learn the knowledge I need to become good at advertising/marketing, and attempt to change society for the better once I can get into a position to do so.

I may not succeed, but at least I'll be able to say that I tried.

 

[DoveAlexa]

Wow, thread has gotten entirely too long and circular for me to read.

I'll just add this: Yes, progress is great, but you're not going to be able to force people to "be smarter" and progress does not need to happen RIGHT F-ING NOW. This is a classic example of our modern problem, we are moving always too fast. What's so bad about progress happening slower? It makes a more permanent change if its not overnight anyhow. Yeah people are starving in africa, but they always were, and they will for a long long time. Forcing everyone to "contribute" and make super fast "fix it all now" progress is just BS.