Why isn't knowledge valued in society?

[durentu]

It really seems to me that our social values haven't kept pace with technology.

People still seem to value a lifestyle that's mostly focused towards going, doing, and achieving tasks in a predictable way. Life is centered on work and family, with little room left for anything else. Those values were perfect for the Industrial Age.

this is the nature of a technological society. things are moving much more quickly so the default human action is to keep up with the latest and greatest, leaving far less time for reflection and day dreaming. Important activities for vibrancy of life and wisdom building. There are those who are controlled by tech (games, porn, online poker, etc), and those who leverage tech (online universities, virtual secretaries, crowd funding, e-gratitude, task/time management tools etc)

But now that we're in the Information Age, those same values are a terrible disadvantage. We need fewer and fewer unskilled laborers, and more skilled workers, more idea people. I think that learning and thinking are now so potentially beneficial to the future of society, that we should be paying people to learn, rather than charging them.

The interesting thing about modern tech is that it has uncoupled labor from geography. Modern financial tech has uncoupled money and time. In the industrial age, you moved from the farms to the cities whereby you held a job which trades time for money while in a particular geography. Modern knowledge or information workers can employ software or secondary outsourcing from anywhere in the world. If done correctly, one can earn money walking or sleeping, from any part of the world. Blogging for money is one such venture.

Of course not everything can be decoupled like this and it's the unskilled labor. But not everyone can or has the inclination to be a knowledge worker. There's lots of happiness in construction and there's a lot of flow in crafts and such. Even if people were genetically advantageous, not everyone will want to blog for a living, but have passions in gardening or cooking.

It seems like we're headed towards regression and stagnation unless something changes soon. I know of so many workplaces that willfully and deliberately stick to outdated methods in order to "make" more work for their employees.

This is basically a management issue than can be understood with the Pareto principle, the 80/20 rule. 20% of the people, will produce 80% of the total. Conversely, 80% of the people only chip in 20%. If you pick a place at random, you'll basically find one of the 80% and they will do really stupid practices that will ultimately creates problems for themselves. In a capitalistic society, an organization can tolerate a limited amount of inefficiencies before people will beg for new laws or the people just won't buy into it.



------------

Education is something that is very deep with people, and for the most part they are insecure about it because of all the tests they plowed through during their indoctrination. So from this, there is a anti-nerd/geek culture that is dominant. But, in rare circles, there is a pro-nerd/geek subculture that was first founded in the dating scene. If women can overcome the quirks, they can have about 80% of their dream partner. These days, the nerd image has been high jacked and concentrates more on appearance than actual conditions. The well adjusted nerd is always in demand. Where good looking people can provide better genes, others will have to provide other things. Nerds provide resources, in place of superior immunology. Think of the penguins. The highest rock pile wins the girl.

 

[Norton]

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...

I'm arguing for more knowledge, not less. I can't see how this can be anything but good for every person on this earth. If an artist knows electronics, this opens up new, exciting possibilities. Think Laurie Anderson and her music. If a mechanic or welder becomes passionate about art, just think of the possibilities for sculpture. If a woman mathematician knows how to knit or crochet, just think of the beautiful topological structures she can make and use to teach her students. Think Cornell Professor, Daina Taimina. Everything you learn adds to you as a person. That's the whole idea behind a liberal arts education. Unfortunately, with the bad economy, fewer people have the luxury of pursuing a degree without regard to a future job. But, regardless, this thread started out questioning why society doesn't value knowledge. I think some people have explained the many reasons why many people feel satisfied to know less and not more.

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.

From what you've said, I bet you'd be very good at math.

 

[Trifoilum]

Hmm..... this conversation is going in a very interesting metaknowledge way...I...don't know what to say, though. /wants to rejoin but got confused by all the information passing through

hmmmm...

I guess a knowledge gives more value* when it can be used in real life?
Where does creativity, wisdom, and wit comes in this, I wonder? I assume it's also an important part of how one could use their knowledge.

*) I wouldn't say 'important' for that gives an implication that non-applicable knowledge are ...well, unimportant. I think there's a place in non-applicable, even random knowledge.

Randomly musing; you can ignore this for it's kinda...random.
I kinda feel like there's a difference between wisdom, skill, and knowledge. Like how in D&D there's a difference between Wisdom and Intelligence. Most of them are interchangeable / can be mixed so much (mechanics / blue-collared jobs rely more on skill, but that can include knowledge about their area of expertise), but it can also be...specific. Not all skillful people are knowledgeable, and vice versa. And I'm not including wisdom in this.

The example comes within my culture / country; here, due to economic factors, lots of people turned into blue-collar jobs with lack of proper education. Now, they ARE good in what they do, but do they know why? What happened behind? Not always. In opposite, The 'knowledgeable' people sometimes lack the skills. They only know theories, but not how to do it.

And then there's wisdom. Knowing good and bad, within specific areas.... I wonder, what's their place...hmm.

Also, 'general skill' that has facets that can be learned in multiple ways. Like say, Logic and strategy. It can be learned in multiple ways, from video games to debate to leading a war.... Or speechcraft / social skills. Or history; you can learn it from reading books, playing games, playing a drama, watching TV...etc.
Then more specific skills. Skills that one learned only by doing that. Like, video games >> playing video games. Learning aspects of that game.. I guess it's that...? ;

...uh, randomly musing indeed. Also, it seems shallow... -A- oh well, going to read this more. Interesting!

 

[durentu]

And then there's wisdom. Knowing good and bad, within specific areas.... I wonder, what's their place...hmm.

someone is deemed wise if and only if
1. has extensive factual and theoretical knowledge
2. knows how to live well
3. is successful at living well
4. has very few unjustified beliefs

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I'm arguing for more knowledge, not less. I can't see how this can be anything but good for every person on this earth. If an artist knows electronics, this opens up new, exciting possibilities. Think Laurie Anderson and her music. If a mechanic or welder becomes passionate about art, just think of the possibilities for sculpture. If a woman mathematician knows how to knit or crochet, just think of the beautiful topological structures she can make and use to teach her students. Think Cornell Professor, Daina Taimina. Everything you learn adds to you as a person. That's the whole idea behind a liberal arts education. Unfortunately, with the bad economy, fewer people have the luxury of pursuing a degree without regard to a future job. But, regardless, this thread started out questioning why society doesn't value knowledge. I think some people have explained the many reasons why many people feel satisfied to know less and not more.

Have some faith There are very few people that just sit there and don't take in any new knowledge or any new interests. Most people do synthesize interests to a degree; it's just often less obvious. The great ones gain fame and recognition; the little ones are just helpful in daily life. However, it's definitely not uncommon for people to do what you've said.

And society does value knowledge; it's just necessary for it to value practical and concrete application as a priority.

 

[toska]

I think the most powerful people in the world designed it to be this way, although the amount of knowledge people are exposed to is increasing despite their best efforts. Why does the media pump out so much infotainment about celebrities' personal lives and coochie pics? They appeal to people's most basic human instincts that mostly revolve around finding mating opportunities...and they're never going to stop. An ignorant, dumbed-down populace is easier to control and manipulate.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKzEpQc-yo8"]YouTube- Brzezinski: "Its easier to kill a million people...than it is to control them"[/ame]

 

[Kgal]

I think the most powerful people in the world designed it to be this way, although the amount of knowledge people are exposed to is increasing despite their best efforts.

I agree with this. It has happened in the past during the European monarchy times. They starved the peasants and serfs to keep them weak and stupid and also to feed the monarchy and it's greed. For years and years China suppressed knowledge (still does for that matter - just ask Google) to keep it's masses from rioting. In the late 70's Iran had an internal coup and the religious leaders took over the country. They then killed almost all of the educated people. One of my best friends and her family barely escaped with their lives for that very reason. And what about the Spanish Inquisition? Their witch hunt started out by trying to eliminate educated women who challenged the church leaders.


Why does the media pump out so much infotainment about celebrities' personal lives and coochie pics?

Interestingly - there is a book published called "The Fourth Turning" by Strauss and Howe that talks about this phenomenon. These guys did research on the Western culture and tried to assign archetypes to the generations. They found repeating patterns. If you look at the "Roaring Twenties" age we went through before the Great Depression - it resembles the times now - mostly. Strauss and Howe called that age the 3rd Turning. The book is a fascinating look at people and their actions from a collective group perspective based upon the generations. We are poised for the 4th Turning, which according to the pattern, is a time of great strife and hardship. (Think of the great depression and World Wars).


They appeal to people's most basic human instincts that mostly revolve around finding mating opportunities...and they're never going to stop. An ignorant, dumbed-down populace is easier to control and manipulate.

It does seem hopeless and futile to think that we'll ever place knowledge at the top of the desirable list. Having grown up in an area that revered the Captain of the football team - as opposed to - the winner of the State Science Fair - I have wondered for most of my life will there ever be a cheer for critical thinking skills?

Then I think about the time of the Renaissance and I realize that IF human kind survives the next big mess we make - then there'll be an upsurge towards true knowledge. We will awaken again.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

My answer to OP:

1. Americans, under the influence of Calvinism, value active/visible acheivement over contemplative/internal growth.

2. Consequent to this, the recognition/illusion of ability is preferred over actual abilty/expertise, giving rise to that detestable saying: "It isn't what you know, it's who you know."

 

[Gaze]

My answer to OP:

1. Americans, under the influence of Calvinism, value active/visible acheivement over contemplative/internal growth.

2. Consequent to this, the recognition/illusion of ability is preferred over actual abilty/expertise, giving rise to that detestable saying: "It isn't what you know, it's who you know."

Well said.

 

[muir]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&feature=related"]YouTube- George Carlin ~ The American Dream[/ame]

 

[magister343]

Then I think about the time of the Renaissance and I realize that IF human kind survives the next big mess we make - then there'll be an upsurge towards true knowledge. We will awaken again.

The Renaissance is not all it is cracked up to be. It was the rebirth of the arts, not of reason or critical thinking. Contemplating internal growth is a much more medieval thing, and visible achievement more renaissance. The renaissance was mostly driven by the desire for conspicuous consumption among the obscenely rich (especially banking families like the Medici who in the previous age would have been reviled for taking advantage of the poor and likely prosecuted for usury rather than lauded and promoted to the ruling class). The high middle ages were marked by greater intellectual rigor, especially in mathematics. Serious scholars today tend to think of the renaissance as a setback, not a golden age, and of the Enlightenment as a return to and continuation of the mindset of the era just before the renaissance. The Renaissance was especially marked by the return of ancient superstitions. People like to think of witch trials as a medieval thing, but that is far from the truth. There virtually no evidence of any witch trials in the middle ages, perhaps because the medieval church officially taught that magic is not real. The renaissance marked the return of witch trials, but no christian nation ever prosecuted witchcraft as widely or harshly as did the pagans of antiquity.


I don't mean to say that the middle ages were great. They still sucked in a lot of ways. It seems that humanity has yet to see an age for which nostalgia is really justified.

The average person may well be more enlightened today than in any age past, it is just that the focus now is more on the common culture and most of what is preserved of previous ages focuses on the elites. Medieval and renaissance popular culture was rather barbaric, especially in the towns which were largely dominated by teenage hooligans and officially supported gangs that did not mind using rape as one of their tools of social humiliation for keeping oddballs like us intuitives in line with cultural norms. Some medieval treatises about chivalry also stated that, while a knight or noble must act with utmost courtesy around all noble women, he has the prerogative to use force instead of seduction on the peasant girls for whom he lusts. Officials in the church also tended to think that prostitution was a good thing, as meaningless sex with various whores was considered a less serious sin for a married man than an emotional attachment to a single mistress.


Edit: I just realized I forgot to mention how the Renaissance saw a sharp rise in cannibalism in Europe. It seems that may have taken ancient superstitions about the medical benefits of such things as drinking the blood of gladiators even further than the ancients. They got the idea that the body contained a mystical life force that sustained it. This was thought to have run out in those who died of old age or of illness, but to remain in the bodies of those killed by violence in the prime of youth. It was thought that this life force could be absorbed by those who ate such human flesh, so as to reinforce one's own life force to extend life and fortify oneself against illness. There was a large market for the blood and flesh of those who had been executed. One pope also had several young boys bled to provide himself a medicine. (The idea that the life is in the blood may be related to the biblical decree, but they seemed to have ignored the fact the both Old and New Testaments are explicit that consuming blood is a serious sin.) Such notions of medical cannibalism did begin to die of for a while, but then made another Medical cannibalism made one more comeback, with the discovery of large numbers of Ancient Egyptian Mummies. These preserved corpses were thought to be one of the most potent sources of the life force, and the consumption of pulverized mummies was a popular panacea as late as the 19th century.

Most superstitions about werewolves and vampires date from the Rennaissance too, probably derived from a combination of the resurgent superstitions and the Rabies epidemics that hit much of Eastern Europe and parts of Italy. Rabies symptons include a rear of light and water (whether holy or not) as well as attacking other humans with one's teeth. It is commonly spread by wolves and bats. These epidemics lead to so many deaths that mass graves had to be made and reopened, and people first saw how the local soils slowed decomposition and how the type of decomposition that did occur caused a ruddy complexion (which was far more associated with vampires than paleness was until the 19th century) and the appearance of blood around the lips.