August 30, 2021
The Conviction of Idiocy: From Socrates to the Internet
Quite a leap, isn’t it? From idiocy and Socrates to the internet. Of course, the real issue here – the keyword, in a sense – is idiocy. Is it timeless, and therefore the common denominator? The answer is yes; there have always been idiots. Indeed, the word “idiot” is Greek. However, there’s a difference, too: Idiocy has evolved.
Nowadays, stupidity (I will use the terms interchangeably) is of a different kind. Understanding its characteristics might, just perhaps, help us better confront it.
At the same time, however, I must emphasize my pessimism. As I have stated before (see my posts on ignorance, Dunning-Kruger, and the failure of democracy), I really don’t see humanity being able to overcome its collective stupidity. The problem with idiocy (as Socrates perhaps would’ve agreed) is that those who should urgently question their thought processes rarely do.
Still, if we managed to at least marginalize idiocy, to the extent historical examples have shown possible, we could perhaps allow a glimmer of hope.
Idiocy and Socrates: Knowing that You Don’t Know
The phrase is commonly known as “I only know that I know nothing”. However, that’s not what Socrates says. Indeed, Socrates says… nothing, as he never left any written record. Still, according to Plato – who should be considered reliable, as he was one of Socrates’s friends and students – we discover what Socrates did say:
I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either.
Plato’s ‘Apology’
What Socrates argues is that, among equally ignorant people, the one who is aware of it is a little bit better off. The reason?
But of course, because starting from a position of ignorance allows us to actually approach knowledge.
To put it simply, a person entrenched in idiocy (Socrates likely wouldn’t have put it in such terms, but I am) has little chance of overcoming their state. On the other hand, one who is aware of their ignorance, is more likely to move closer to the truth.
The Evolution of Public Idiocy
There is a delightful oxymoron in the heading, one which you might not be aware of if you’re unfamiliar with the etymology of “idiot”. In ancient Greek, an “idiot” was a “private person”, that is, one too self-centered to bother being a citizen. The word partly retains its meaning in modern Greek, where an idiotes (ιδιώτης) is an employee in the private rather than public sector, or an individual rather than a corporation.
But there’s a connection with our topic, too.
Idiocy in Socrates’s time did not spread very fast. Indeed, up until the modern times and mass media, idiocy lacked the viral aspect: In plain terms, it took some time for idiocy to acquire momentum and become truly public.
Things changed with mass media (especially with the box in every household, telling you what to believe). But the truly revolutionary change came – you guessed it – with social media. Idiocy spreads like wildfire, in no time, with few repercussions.
The Social Media Paradox: or, what if idiocy, Socrates, and Twitter Coexisted
What social media brought was the elimination of minority opinion.
Stupidity is like a virus: It transmits from one susceptible person to another. Have you ever seen horses, cows, or other herd animals reacting all together to something? It usually takes one or two of them to start running (because of a fly or other nuisance), and then suddenly the entire group runs without knowing why. “Heck, if others run, I better run too”. It helps them survive.
In a way, it’s the same with stupidity: It often assumes the form of a simple answer to a complex question, out of desire to find easy solutions to unanswerable (or hard) problems. As such, it’s a natural (but still flawed) reaction to a perceived threat.
Nonetheless, as I said, idiocy still didn’t “transmit” easily from person to person. When it takes three weeks to travel between two towns and bring news, things take time. Stupid ideas were minority opinions.
Today, social media and the internet at large have allowed us to spread information instantaneously. Not only that, but organizing in groups facilitates the creation of echo chambers, hence giving the impression that a large number of people, perhaps even the majority, actually embrace a given idea.
Ironically, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: The more people actually believe that and behave stupidly, the likelier it is for a stupid idea to acquire momentum.
What Can Be Done?
Nothing.
(I told you, I’m a pessimist. Or at least, a nihilist. Heck, maybe I’m a realist).
More seriously, and perchance usefully, what can be done is to focus our efforts on those who can be rescued from stupidity. First and foremost, this means ourselves.
You have unique access to your own thought process. You are the only one, quite by definition, who can persuade yourself of the validity or not of a claim. Question everything, and often.
However, there is also a very important point to understand: To question everything does not mean not to have trust in anything and believe it’s all a gigantic, elaborate lie or conspiracy (I use the term deliberately, to help you understand what’s at stake here).
In other words, in order not to descend into cognitive chaos and perpetual suspension of judgment, we make certain assumptions about life:
Similarly, we need to draw the line and accept as factual (until further evidence) things of which we are not 100% certain. To question everything doesn’t mean to never accept anything. It only means to approach everything tentatively and require evidence to be convinced.
5 Comments
Comments are closed for posts older than 90 days
In my book “Humane Physics – The Whole Story” there is a chapter called “What is, and how to find, truth?” My short definition of truth is: “Truth is an observation or a plausible theory that has not [yet] been contradicted by the accumulated knowledge available to us.” The two operative words are ‘plausible’ and ‘yet’. This means that one (non-idiotic) person constantly needs to evaluate any new suggestion for probability of being true, based on his/her life experience and, at the same time, be prepared to change this assessment, based on new information as it becomes available.
Nothing should surprise me anymore when it comes to human ignorance, but I’m always shocked by the sheer inability of people to understand how the concept of scientific truth, with falsifiability in its core, works. I’ve heard people referring to the theory of evolution (worse: the theory of relativity!) as “only a theory, therefore it could be wrong” (usually mentioning creationism as an alternative “theory”). There is right, there is wrong, and (to refer to Wolfgang Pauli) there’s not even wrong. It’s relatively straightforward to show someone why they’re wrong, but making them understand why they’re “not even wrong” is a far harder task.
As a hard scientist, I hope we will always have my kind – there is, in the human, that curiosity. It is ironic that being someone in your title group is often leading to the ultimate punishment, as those who eschew science are forgoing the creation that might save their lives. Not fast enough, or they would be clamoring at the gates.
Humans have always been on the edge of extinction, and yet, somehow survived the Little Ice Age, the 1918 flu, world wars…
I still have hope – I have children who are just starting out in adulthood, have good educations, jobs, and do not feel entitled to things they have not earned. Unfortunately, growing one of those takes an incredible amount of effort – the other kind, almost none.
Personally, as I revealed in the post, I’m a pessimist. And yet, an outlook such as yours – maintaining hope – allows a small part of me to also be a little bit optimistic, and hopeful. Thanks for your comment!
We all get one chance (unless you believe in reincarnation) through this life. You have to pick how to do that, in a world with 7 BILLION+ other people.
If being a pessimist serves you best (regardless of what reality is), then you pick that. I’ve lived over three decades with a chronic disease much like long-covid. I choose to write, I chose to have children, I continue to choose what lets me function day-to-day – with a look toward possible futures (I would not want to be in many places on Earth right now). Despair exhausts me – so I don’t choose it.
In any case, having reared my own children the best I could (I’m satisfied), there isn’t a whole lot more I can do – except hope that my writing makes a slightly better world because I have created a path for empathy for society toward disabled people.
We’ll see how that goes.
And I’m going to have to need a LOT of luck.