|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
Wisdom and intelligence are different things. And to quote an uncle (who was probably quoting someone else) "wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone."
I agree that experience does not automatically provide understanding, there has to be some degree of reflection and/or analysis. But knowledge without experience is also limits understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 67
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 67 |
"A related idea is this silly notion that 'with age comes wisdom.'"
There is a very similar thought expressed in "Farewell to Arms." I neither have a copy right now, nor remember the exact words. It is a conversation between the protagonist and an elderly, probably retired, gentleman in a hotel... Can anyone pinpoint what I'm talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
What I like about the forum format is that we can come back and revisit things. Moreover, we have the opportunity to think things over before responding (exactly as you're doing and as I've done) and we can include things and refine things, even change our minds in mid-sentence, if we think it's appropriate. We can go off, feed the kids, think some pleasant thoughts, consider things from other angles, and respond when we've figured out what we want to say. In response to Zed, I'm aware that my view on intelligence and wisdom is at odds with the common view that they are distinct. I consider wisdom to be one component of intelligence, while most people consider the relationship between them to be something like "Intelligence is how well you think and wisdom is how well you apply your intelligence." I don't agree with the view, but I'm willing to accept it for the purpose of the conversation. (However, I'm bound to slip from time to time and I can only beg your pardon in advance.) I agree with Wordwind on the importance of doubting, but with some proviso, which I have yet to formulate in a way that makes sense to me. I can only give an admittedly poor example of the principle. When I was in elementary school, I had trouble with basic math. I've said before I failed 2nd grade and during 3rd grade when they talked about math, they took me from class to the 1st grade end of the school - this despite the fact that my general mathematical abilities were quite good. I was a victim of the New Math. By Jr High, I was quicker - FAR quicker at basic arithmetic than anyone I knew. I could do things quicker in my head than most people could with a calculator - no kidding. My skills have atrophied over the years, but I can still do math pretty well in my head (my oldest daughter is quicker though). However, I never quite believed in multiplication. I just kept doing these things over and over ... I could have completely rejected what the teachers told me {very, very tempting}, but I didn't ... instead, I figured they must know something I didn't know (and it turned out I was right ... much later I learned about fields and groups and then things started making sense). It wasn't that I couldn't multiply. Like I said, I was really good at it and am still fairly good. But I didn't understand it. Two different things. I didn't reject what my teachers told me. I just had some feeling that there was something that was missing. Not really an argument against doubting, per se, so much as the reaction to one's doubt. To continue my prefatory remarks, 5. My vocation is programming and my training is in computer engineering. And since I think analogy is a better way to communicate an idea than logic and because I think that one should try to stick with what knows, I'm going to make a case for something from a pov that is familiar to me. In engineering, one learns "The Problem-Solving Method." In every engineering class one learns some variant of Georg Polya's generalized technique. While the particulars may vary, though, by subject they really are all variations on the same theme AND THE FIRST STEP IS ALWAYS TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. Sometimes one draws a diagram, but the purpose of drawing the diagram is to prepare one for understanding the problem. Everything is really riding on this step. One of the most common reasons for the failure of large software engineering projects is failure to adequately understand the problem before the "real work" begins. (Check out http://sern.ucalgary.ca/~shroff/seng613/index1.htm and search for 'causes of failure'. This is just one source, but most sources will say something similar and I think these numbers are conservative.) The thing we learn in the classroom is that you can't solve a problem if you don't really know what the problem is. Imagine this scenario: two people get the assignment to build a bridge. One fellow spends two weeks in the library reviewing statics - that branch of applied physics pertaining to forces that produce equilibrium in physical systems. The other is more of a can-do guy. He immediately whips out a drawing, and goes to purchase materials with which to construct a bridge. He thinks the first guy is just making excuses not to get started. Sound funny? It would be if this exact scenario weren't repeated with such frequence in the world of software engineering. And yet, software systems, as complicated as they are (and some of them are among the most complicated things humans have ever created -- hard for me to judge really, but in my mind, some of this stuff is on par with the creation of the pyramids or what have you), as complicated as they are, I suspect they're pretty simple compared to human systems - cultures, societies, etc. Despite this, there are mitigating factors when dealing with societies - at least some of them - there is the capacity for self-correction in some of them (probably to some degree in most of them). I'm getting ahead of myself, though. The thrust of this is that it might feel good - like one is really making a lot of progress to get that drawing done, and go out and purchase the materials - to get down to brass tacks, but it's not necessarily the right thing to do to solve the problem. There's this general belief, I think, that it doesn't matter why someone believes something so long as they behave the way we think they should behave. It doesn't matter why they disagree, but only THAT they disagree. A corollary - It doesn't matter that we misclassify a behavior (or as is actually the case 'the motivation for a behavior, statement, or belief') as 'pure ignorance.' My issue with this approach is that it may feel good, and it may even be true, but it's not the central problem and problems don't generally get solved until they are correctly identified. 6. I note that in many cases people are made to feel humiliated when they have made mistakes. Ah, we think, but they SHOULD feel humiliated. This view is a natural consequence of the societal value that manners only apply to those who are correct. After all manners are a mask for truth and truth is more important than mere feelings. This is almost always maintained by people who are convinced they are right. It's a lot easier to discount feelings, of course, when they are someone else's than when they are one's own. Actually I hadn't meant to get into this one yet .... I'll leave this for now. Synopsis of first five points: 1. Understanding a problem is vital to solving a problem. The more complicated a problem, the more important is that first step. 2. Pointing out someone else's ignorance seldom seems to be an accurate or important part of defining the problem. 3. Experience alone does not equate to knowledge or understanding or wisdom - with regards to sex, or drugs (or marriage or just about anything else). 4. Communication - even that part of communication called 'argument' - is or ought to considered "a two way street." 5. To rephrase what Van and Pfranz have said previously, scoring points isn't the same as making an argument. k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
fiendishly clever-there!
do you know the book "you really oughta wanna?"- subtitled something like problem analysis and resolution? its a small volume, but its a great problem solving tool.. (its about 30 years old, and still in print! some of the 'problems' it address have become passe-which serves to better make their point! (since one of 'problems' that is addressed is long hair on guys! -- there was a time when management was bend out of shape about this!
it makes a good point, that people often really want to do the right thing, and will most often try to do the right thing.. you just have to make sure your right thing and their right thing are the same..
(one point they make is management provides "negative rewards" for doing the right thing..ie, we have 100 envelopes to address.. each of us gets 50.. an hour later, you are done, and i (did i mention i was goofing off, and talking on the phone?) have only got 10 done.. so the boss give you half again of the remaining envelopes.. ( and hour later, you're done, and i have only done another 10.. so half again go to you, and in the next hour i finish off my final 5.. so i did 25%, and you did 75% work, and the boss says "good job you two!"
so the next time a job comes up, you work as slow as i do, and we both take 4 hours to do a 1 hour job! (or you continue to do 75% of the work, and i continue to do 25%, and we both end up getting raises.. you get 3%, and i get 2.5%)
pretty soon, you either quit, or develop a negative attitude, (and why not, your doing most of the work, and i am goofing off!) You keep giving negitive rewards to people, and you end up with negative people!
but what most managers will see is the negitive attitude that developes in the hard worker,not the irresponsibility of the goof off.. and eventually the negative worker starts getting poor review, and 1% raises,and the goof off still collects his/her 2.5% year after year...and management complains its hard to get "good worker like me, who are always cheerful, and pleasant to work with!"
there are lots of other negative rewards (Oh Jackie, you are so calm, and caring, you do so much, i am going to give you the hardest cases, the most negative people to deal with, since you remain calm with them... or Helen, you do a great job, we need you here, in this department, we want you here! (unspoken, is and we are not going to approve your transfer to that department where you can earn more money..)
in many companies, that go getter who starts the bridge with no planning is a "go getter, stand up guy" and he get rewarded-- even though, his poor planning results in cost overruns when mistakes have to be rebuilt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
I think there are two things being thought about here: honest ignorance, and "argument by pointing out someone else's ignorance" as a means of obtaining or sustaining a place in the pecking order. 1. nothing wrong with honest ignorance. that means not knowing something because you've never had the experience to deal with it. ignorance because you think you know it already and don't want to deal with having to learn something new is not honest, and therefore is un-acceptable. wisdom subpoint-one can be wise without necessarily being intelligent. experience can beget wisdom, at least for certain situations. and intelligence does in no way guarantee wisdom. lots of stupid smart people out there. 2. Pecking order. we do so many things throughout our lives(well, at least I do) based upon what people will think, and where it will place us in the social strata. who's around, what should I say, etc. one of the easiest ways(we think) is to knock other people down to stay up. humans aren't wise as a species; we don't yet understand that cooperation benefits all... anyway, a lot of this repeats what has already been said, but i needed to express a bit to get the thoughts flowing... lots to chew on, thanks, Fiend. 
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
etaoin writes: nothing wrong with honest ignorance.
This is easily said, but I can think of numerous occassions where I just didn't ask about something because I was afraid of people's reactions to my ignorance. When you later find out that no one else knew what the hell was going on, or that you couldn't possibly have known you feel better about yourself, but you could have saved a lot of trouble if you'd just asked in the first place. I have the feeling that honest and open ignorance is very disarming though.
"Pointing out someone else's ignorance" is of course very common, which reminds me that sometimes people will also feign ignorance to suit their purposes too.
Very interesting thread, btw.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Bunch of things; eta, I so agree with your first post! I read, and think, oh, I want to respond to that, and then, ooh, I have to respond to this, and then, no, I have to read to the end... As a matter of fact, I am typing in an e-mail, just so that I can see the posts without clicking back and forth.
by, yes, this is a very interesting thread; I thought, when I started the conversation one, that it was high time we had another good discussion here.
I notice also that some people approach a conversation the way evangelists approach my front door.
Once again, Keith, you made me laugh out loud--I can just SEE what you're talking about!
Also--now I want to know your definition of wisdom, please, if you don't mind.
I agree with yours and eta's opinion about honest ignorance and on what it is; and in most cases, I don't think people should be blamed. I don't think it will come as a surprise to many here that I keep myself willfully ignorant of Shakespeare. Yes, it causes me to miss a fair number of references, but it just plain is not worth it to me, to try and wade through all that, which for me is nearly as difficult as another language. I am very much an "asker" (also no surprise to some here), but if there is something I don't know to ask about... You have to be aware of something before you can ask about it, 99 or so percent of the time.
I also couldn't agree more that you can't solve a problem if you don't really know what the problem is --much of the time. Partly because it's true, and partly because that is my learning style. I have difficulty, sometimes, in understanding parts of things unless I have first seen the whole (which, I suppose, might explain my need to keep going back so I can see your entire set of posts). I would strongly have preferred, before ever doing anything on my computer, to have a complete understanding--make that awareness--of everything it can do. However, that too would have been more of an effort than I was willing to make. But I have since discovered things that, had I known of them earlier, would have saved me both time and aggravation; and I am quite sure there are many more of which I am still unaware. But, back to problem-solving; let's say that my toilet keeps running. I go to the hardware store, the guy tells me I need to replace this doohickey, and I do: problem solved, and I have no real understanding of what I have done. But if the same thing recurs, I'll know what to do next time. However, if I develop a chronic ache in a strange place, I don't want the Dr. to just give me painkillers--I want her/him to figure out what's causing the pain, and fix THAT. And in that instance, I'll usually understand the problem, as well as the solution. Sometimes throwing a bridge up works; sometimes it doesn't.
About doubt, per this discussion: perhaps a better word might be question. This is not at all the opposite of blind-faith acceptance and belief. Doubt kind of implies that you DISbelieve what was said. You seem not to have disbelieved your math teachers, but you did need to question them; not to disprove what they said, but to further your own understanding.
Helen, your post indicates a pretty dim view of managers. I'd like to think most are better than that, but. I hadn't realized people do things like that (working deliberately slowly) on purpose. (Well, I guess that's another one of those willful-ignorance things; *I* don't do that, so I don't like to think that others do it, either.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
well, there are some bad managers out there..
one of the points of the book is most people start out as eager, happy, excited.. and with poor management, they become disgruntled, sullen workers.. and management often complains and tells them to buck up.. they see it at as a morale problem, when in reality it is often a larger problem
(and sometimes it can't be "managed")
one old examplein the book, involve miners in south african mines. Most were blacks. most were unskilled, but a small percentage were the skilled operators of the "face" machine- a huge machine that ground the face of the rock. the noise was deafening.. so workers were required to wear elaberate hearing protectors.. only they didn't..
and when they didn't, they went deaf! you'd think, they'd really ought to wanna wear hearing protection!
the real problem, was status. since the job of operating the face machine was a high skilled, and high paying and high status job, the men who did it wanted to be recognized.. and one mark of the job, was going deaf from operating the machine. at the time (the book was written in early 1970's,) there were very few ways for black south africans to "strut their stuff" and show off their skill and high status.. but going deaf was one way.
men would choose to not to wear hearing protection, go deaf,and 'mark' themselves in their community as a high skilled worker. there pride of their status was more important to them than their hearing!
until management recognize why the men wouldn't wear hearing protection, they couldn't solve the problem, and get them to change. (managment in this case, tried to create evident visual sign to note the mens status.. first off, they started to require them to were uniforms.. and since only the face workers got uniforms, (which they never wore in the mine, they were to hot and uncomfortable) but could wear on the street) the uniform of the face machine operator gave the men a hazzard free way to proclaim their status!(you might ask why they didn't use the money they earned to buy status, but since the men lived most of the year in a dormatory on the work site, there was little they could do to show off their status)
kids often act 'out of their own best interests' too, and many times, when you find people doing things that seem, like they really ought to know better than to do, there are often reasons-- not ignorance, but some other factor that is working against them behaving a certain way.
i was "ignorant" about how to clean the sump pump in our first house.. even though, with out it, i couldn't do laundry. I never could learn how to shut it off, lie down on the celler floor, reach into the stagnent water, grab the slimy filter on the bottom of the pump, slide it up, and clean the slime off.. I remained ignorant- i learned to do remain ignorant, my ex had already displayed his ignorance about changing babies diapers..
people often motivated to remain ignorant!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
You've all pretty much anticipated a lot of what I was going to say, but I'll hold off commenting too much at the moment. I've tried to give examples from experiences that I thought were general enough that probably most people had had similar ones.
Point 1.
One very specific experience: when I started university, I had a number of friends who were prodigies of sorts. One had started college when he was 14, the other at 15. Both had a similar problem in dealing with their older 'peers', although the 15 yo was much more adept at understanding what his own motivations and fears were. I've lost track of the second boy, but the first is among my closest friends even today, now that I'm 42 and he's closing in on 40. Both were brilliant. The second boy, though, spoke to me once about a class we were in. I don't recall if we were in it together or if I had had it previously. This was some time ago. Anyway, he told me he really needed to ask questions sometimes, but didn't because he was afraid of being humiliated by the older guys. "Oh, you think your *SO* smart, but you didn't even know XYZ! So much for your being a prodigy!"
This is a very common problem for kids who are good at school or have something (other than sports) that they're really good at. Any failure at all, any hint of intellectual weakness results in an immediate barrage of venom-tipped projectiles at the exposed area.
Point 2.
And yet another thing I was going to bring up is feigned ignorance. I'm usually pretty calm with my kids, but one thing that really sends me into a tirade is when they pretend to be more stupid than they are - particularly if they're asking for my help on something. "Look, I'll help you, but it's your damned homework and I'm not gonna do it for you." I don't have to do this very often, as they know where the line is, but like any kid they'll test the limits occasionally.
Helen:
Very, very good examples. I'm not familiar with those examples, but I've read similar anecdotes in Lister and Demarco, among others. It's not maliciousness or stupidity, I think, but lack of training for managers and - for a long time - the lack of their being anything like 'management science.' You take someone who's a brilliant engineer and put him in charge of a bunch of other people and he may or may not take to it. It's a gamble.
Jackie: As I said, I consider wisdom vs intelligence to be a separate discussion, so I'm willing to accept the common view. Also, I don't understand enough about general intelligence OR wisdom to defend my opinions which are founded on my own gestalted epiphanies and not training or well-considered reasoning. Nor have I thought this all the way through. Still, correct or not, I have my opinion. I suspect wisdom is not one thing, but many things. It's an axis - or more probably multiple axes - in the space of intelligence, though these axes are not orthogonal (independent). It's a kind of intelligence that is dependent on other intelligences and on which other intelligences depend. On the contrary view, I could make a similar view of personality. I think personality is affected by intelligence and also affects intelligence - and yet it seems silly to say that personality IS a kind of intelligence. OTOOH, 50 years ago we might not have considered physical ability or interpersonal skills to be "kinds of intelligence."
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
A few comments here:
I think by's problem with fearing to appear ignorant, even if honestly so, is more an indictment of the idea that ignorant is necessarily bad than it is an indictment of the notion of honest ignorance.
The point about young students being particularly susceptible to fear of showing ignorance is spot on. When I first went to college I had come directly out of high school with good grades but without having developed good study habits, a result of not having been challenged in high school. If I didn't understand something that was being presented in the college class, I didn't understand why I didn't understand it and did have some fear of appearing ignorant. Later, when I went back to college after four years in the Navy and two years of real life working, I understood a lot more and had lost much of my fear of appearing ignorant. If I saw that other, mostly younger (although there were some other veterans in my classes) students weren't quite grasping a concept, I would ask the stupid question. I could do this for several reasons, not the least of which was that I wasn't worried about seeming ignorant, but also because I often *did understand what the professor was trying to get across and I could tell what it was that the other students weren't understanding.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,342
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
1 members (A C Bowden),
429
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
