Knowledge + Humility = Cowardice

[Kriminal99]

Simply put, it is cowardice not to share knowledge that you have with others because you are afraid they will be offended that you believe you know more than they.

 

Especially when that knowledge can benefit others.

[modest]

Simply put, it is cowardice not to share knowledge that you have with others because you are afraid they will be offended that you believe you know more than they.

 

Especially when that knowledge can benefit others.

 

That's an interesting position. It sounds about the opposite of the Socratic method,

The Socratic Method of Teaching -- Overview of the Socratic Method of Teaching -- The Socratic Paradox

“The role of the teacher is to uncover the question that the answer hides.” -James Baldwin

 

Let us begin at the source. Like so many students before him and even those today, Socrates’ student Meno is exasperated by his teacher’s refusal to “just tell him” what to do, what truth is, and in their dialogue, whether or not virtue can be taught. Meno is astounded when Socrates openly admits not only that he does not know whether virtue can be taught but also that the does not even know what virtue is. “What!” Meno asks: “Is this the report we are to take home about you?” In characteristic manner, Socrates challenges his student to rephrase the question, to reflect on it, and to arrive at this own answer. In so doing, Socrates helps Meno wrestle with the implications of the problem that he has posed for their discussion. Indeed, Socrates makes a point of asserting his own ignorance: “All I can say is that I have often looked to see if there are any [teachers of virtue], and in spite of all my efforts, I cannot find them... I do not know what virtue is and, not only that, you may say also, that to the best of my belief, I have never yet met anyone who did know” (Rouse 29). Meno leaves confounded that his teacher, his master and guide, refuses to confirm what Meno believes he already knows.

 

Nevertheless, as Socrates’ reputation for wisdom continues to grow, another impetuous statement, Chaerephon, goes to the oracle of Delphi to ask if anyone is wiser than Socrates. The priestess of Apollo, Pythia, replies that no one is. When Socrates hears the answer he is genuinely puzzled: “I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men?” (426). But why does Socrates take the oracle’s word at face value? Could the god also have meant that no one was wider than Socrates because wisdom is not to be found among men? Socrates is even more explicit about his ignorance in the defnece of his life at his trial, The Apology. After questioning another who claimed to be wise, Socrates concludes, “I am better off than he is—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have the slight advantage over him” (327). What we have here is the great paradox of learning: we must first kow what we want to know or recognize what we do not know. Is this confusing? Only at first. What Socrates suggests is that the first step to learning is knowing how to ask an honest question—one that you have no answer to or one that you have several answers to but none entirely satisfy. In short, unless you have questions, you cannot learn. As learning begins, the more you know, the more you [realize that] do not know. Such is the Socratic paradox.

Socratic seminars and literature ... - Google Books

 

~modest

[Buffy]

So only manual labor should be rewarded by renumeration?

 

Should the invention of ideas and concepts only be rewarded by the good feelings of accomplishment?

 

What implications do you think that would have for society?

 

Indolence is sweet, and its consequences bitter, :)

Buffy

[alexander]

Simply put, it is cowardice not to share knowledge that you have with others because you are afraid they will be offended that you believe you know more than they.

What about not simply put? A great part of philosophy is about reasoning your way to your conclusion, so can you reason your way from a common understanding/belief/action/thing to your opinion (note i am neither agreeing nor disagreeing here, infact i am interested in your deductive reasoning)

 

I also don't think is cowardice, maybe immature, ignorant and/or anti-social, yeah, cowardice, perhaps, perhaps not thought. Usually the background state that drives such situations is not so much as not sharing information because you think that someone will be offended that you know more then they, usually, i find, that those people are either looking for attention, and want to fit in, or want you to believe they have a piece of a puzzle that they really don't have (I call those infobluffs), and those are usually an attempt to tease you, usually because they themselves realize that you have a wealth of knowledge that they don't, and are themselves intimidated by that. The other time this comes up is when someone thinks they are so far ahead of you that the concepts that make up that knowledge are not known to you, and thus they don't want to share the information with you, as they think or they know that it will not add to your informational bank.

Now, having to do much of the later i would almost want to defend that position, but personally if someone is interested in an advanced concept and i have the time to describe to them all the intricacies of the base foundation, i gladly do it, but if someone is seeking the wrong knowledge for a wrong reason, i tend to be more socratic and have them try to answer their own question, give up, and go learn something productive (that is generally what i do when someone asks something extremely stupid, like "so how would you break into my home network/computer" or "how do i write my own OS" or "so if the LHC can produce a black hole....", that general line of questions, we all get them every now and again, don't we)...

 

Should the invention of ideas and concepts only be rewarded by the good feelings of accomplishment?

Isn't it already, buffy? You being a coder and a computer person in general should know, when you are struggling with a concept, and you don't know how you are going to implement it, and then it just comes to you in this beautiful form, and it totally makes sense, and its concise and beautiful, do you not experience a feeling of accomplishment, is it not a positive reinforcement?

 

P.S. Buffy, i, well not just by myself, am working on a PHP development framework you might enjoy playing with, when it gets completed, if you are interested, or have some time, or wanna chat about it, pm me, i'd love to hear your opinion on the concepts and ideas we have for it :) .

[Buffy]

Should the invention of ideas and concepts only be rewarded by the good feelings of accomplishment?

Isn't it already, buffy? You being a coder and a computer person in general should know, when you are struggling with a concept, and you don't know how you are going to implement it, and then it just comes to you in this beautiful form, and it totally makes sense, and its concise and beautiful, do you not experience a feeling of accomplishment, is it not a positive reinforcement?

 

I think ya' missed the "only" part A... I'm actually all for sharing and rail against most of the insane software patents that have been handed out for things that are clearly obvious or have plenty of prior art, but I also make my living off of those ideas, and I must say I don't feel too guilty when self-righteous jerks demand that I give them to them for free...

 

In other words, if you come up with an incredible idea, I won't begrudge you asking to get paid for it, although I'll agree there's tremendous reward in having come up with it in the first place....

 

Courage! What makes a king out of a slave? Courage! What makes the flag on the mast to wave? Courage! What makes the elephant charge his tusk in the misty mist, or the dusky dusk? What makes the muskrat guard his musk? Courage! What makes the sphinx the seventh wonder? Courage! What makes the dawn come up like thunder? Courage! What makes the Hottentot so hot? What puts the "ape" in apricot? What have they got that I ain't got? :)

Buffy

[Kriminal99]

That's an interesting position. It sounds about the opposite of the Socratic method,

Socratic seminars and literature ... - Google Books

 

~modest

 

The Socratic method is diplomatic and wise... modesty is not a word I would use to describe it. To me modesty would be if Socrates did not say anything at all and did not dare ask those questions that would reveal the would be wise folk to be contradicting themselves.

 

Especially since Socrates was executed because his behavior (The use of the Socratic method) was deemed arrogant and sarcastic...

 

Why don't you try defining what you think modesty means to you. The definition of knowledge that I hold is the one that Lehr described, that is knowledge are beliefs that you have that continue to stand no matter how hard you try to disprove them. But this is an ongoing process, so it requires you to be open minded even as you are describing what you would otherwise believe to be knowledge.

 

However in practice this makes little difference. Do you simply tell someone the knowledge you hold, and always be open to an unexpected disproof of it, or do you put that same statement in the form of a question. Not really a big difference. Socrates believed he had knowledge of knowledge itself and this motivated him to ask what others perceived to be his annoying arrogant questions.

[Kriminal99]

What about not simply put? A great part of philosophy is about reasoning your way to your conclusion, so can you reason your way from a common understanding/belief/action/thing to your opinion (note i am neither agreeing nor disagreeing here, infact i am interested in your deductive reasoning)

 

I also don't think is cowardice, maybe immature, ignorant and/or anti-social, yeah, cowardice, perhaps, perhaps not thought. Usually the background state that drives such situations is not so much as not sharing information because you think that someone will be offended that you know more then they, usually, i find, that those people are either looking for attention, and want to fit in, or want you to believe they have a piece of a puzzle that they really don't have (I call those infobluffs), and those are usually an attempt to tease you, usually because they themselves realize that you have a wealth of knowledge that they don't, and are themselves intimidated by that. The other time this comes up is when someone thinks they are so far ahead of you that the concepts that make up that knowledge are not known to you, and thus they don't want to share the information with you, as they think or they know that it will not add to your informational bank.

Now, having to do much of the later i would almost want to defend that position, but personally if someone is interested in an advanced concept and i have the time to describe to them all the intricacies of the base foundation, i gladly do it, but if someone is seeking the wrong knowledge for a wrong reason, i tend to be more socratic and have them try to answer their own question, give up, and go learn something productive (that is generally what i do when someone asks something extremely stupid, like "so how would you break into my home network/computer" or "how do i write my own OS" or "so if the LHC can produce a black hole....", that general line of questions, we all get them every now and again, don't we)...

 

 

Isn't it already, buffy? You being a coder and a computer person in general should know, when you are struggling with a concept, and you don't know how you are going to implement it, and then it just comes to you in this beautiful form, and it totally makes sense, and its concise and beautiful, do you not experience a feeling of accomplishment, is it not a positive reinforcement?

 

P.S. Buffy, i, well not just by myself, am working on a PHP development framework you might enjoy playing with, when it gets completed, if you are interested, or have some time, or wanna chat about it, pm me, i'd love to hear your opinion on the concepts and ideas we have for it :) .

 

Ok. The most extreme scenario is the doomsday scenario. No-one understands an imminent doomsday threat except for you. If you bring it up, everyone will think you arrogant for thinking to know better than other experts in the field, and weird for trying to scare people. But if you do not say anything because of this and brave the naysayers, many people could die as a result. If you do brave the unwashed masses, it might take you many years of dealing with great disdain before anyone will finally understand.

 

This is the extreme scenario. I personally hold that it is ALWAYS the case, because free flow of information allows everyone to plan more effectively and therefore operate more efficiently. Lets say I join a new job and I have a lot of knowledge related to leadership. I am present when someone several levels above me on the corporate latter talks about leadership. I disagree on some very important point that I have a crystal clear understanding of. I voice this disagreement, and eventually get fired because of it. Once I am gone, the person realizes I am right and practices this behavior from then on. The business operates more efficiently, the idea may spread (perhaps people will turn to this person for advice because of this increased efficiency) and thus the economy more operate more efficiently. Every little bit helps.

 

A main point of this line of thinking is that humility is fine when you don't know anything, but that you shouldn't expect others to always be as humble as you because they may know something that you do not.

 

I agree that no one man can educate every iq 75 person to the highest level of mathematics. But deciding to use your effort where it will be most effective isn't really humility or is it? Another non humility related reason I might do this is to prevent someone else from taking credit for an idea that you had to argue with them to get them to understand.

 

 

I guess what I had in mind when I said humility was that people seem to expect me not to say anything when I am 100% sure of something. The problem clearly seems to me to be that they don't realize just how clearly I understand the thing I am talking about. Not because I am not explaining it well, but more because they have some wall of ignorance preventing them from listening based on their belief that no-one could understand that topic so clearly or perhaps that no one in my position could. Thus they interpret it as arrogance or a lack of humility.

 

But humility has no purpose or meaning when you are just acting as the messenger of truth. IMO humility is another one of those ideas that has no formal meaning - it was just created by weak inductive reasoning. In this case it was created by naively trying to force the actions of one person who says nothing because he knows nothing onto another person who speaks. We say the person who speaks is not humble, and the person who does not speak is humble.

 

In reality the person who speaks is motivated by knowledge, and the person who doesn't is motivated to do so by ignorance. Nothing like humility comes into play.

[Donk]

Lets say I join a new job and I have a lot of knowledge related to leadership. I am present when someone several levels above me on the corporate latter talks about leadership. I disagree on some very important point that I have a crystal clear understanding of. I voice this disagreement, and eventually get fired because of it. Once I am gone, the person realizes I am right and practices this behavior from then on. The business operates more efficiently, the idea may spread (perhaps people will turn to this person for advice because of this increased efficiency) and thus the economy more operate more efficiently. Every little bit helps.

I don't know whether you've ever seen that effect in action. Personally, I doubt it. If a manager takes strongly against an idea for whatever reason, nobody at that firm, especially the manager himself, is ever going to accept that it might have been valid.

In reality the person who speaks is motivated by knowledge, and the person who doesn't is motivated to do so by ignorance.

Sit in on a few high-level meetings and you might change your mind about that one. MOST of the talk comes from people who don't know what they're talking about. :)

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

DONK-I don't know whether you've ever seen that effect in action. Personally, I doubt it. If a manager takes strongly against an idea for whatever reason, nobody at that firm, especially the manager himself, is ever going to accept that it might have been valid.

It's not the Idea the manager takes offense at, it is receiving said Idea from a peon.....Ie. how dare you tell me how to___________, I've been here a lot longer than you!!!! etc.etc.etc.

 

BUT....if said Idea makes sense and the manager can benefit from implimenting it you better believe they will....especially if they think they will be rewarded for any improvement it may cause...and boy howdy they will be the first running to tell their higher ups how it was their Idea to implement it if it goes well.....if not they'll be the first to fit yer neck for the noose [figuratively speaking of course].

 

DONK- Sit in on a few high-level meetings and you might change your mind about that one. MOST of the talk comes from people who don't know what they're talking about.

Yah....executive is really code for overpaid moron.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Simply put, it is cowardice not to share knowledge that you have with others because you are afraid they will be offended that you believe you know more than they.

 

Especially when that knowledge can benefit others.

Nah...it's just the desire to continue to have an income.

 

In a non-employment situation it may be more practical than fighting or arguing with an idiot....or worse the ultimate loosing proposition.... arguing with a woman.....especially when she's absolutely certain she's right.....which is pretty much always:hihi:

 

And lastly in some cases giving free info away is counter productive to ones dreams and aspirations as giving the info may cheat the giver out of revenue at a later date.

[alexander]

I must say I don't feel too guilty when self-righteous jerks demand that I give them to them for free

But see that's the honest part of you, you do work, you get a reinforcement, positive or negative (negative reinforcement is not necessarily a punishment). You also work in a corporate world, as do I, apparently, and there are fairly often times when someone who thinks they are somehow better then you, that demand you do something for them. There are people who have those hightened statusory (great another one to define in the hypoctionary) feelings about themselves, who demand of you what you do, but what is technically an art. But the problem ofcourse being that in reality those people are really nothing, but good idea supporters, they take on someone elses idea and then somehow present it as their own, but without you, and people like yourself, like me, they can't get those ideas, thus they depend on you, and yet treat you as if you are their slave...

 

Also, I'm not self-righteous...

 

if you come up with an incredible idea, I won't begrudge you asking to get paid for it

I know, that's the righteous capitalist part of us, i don't mind sharing my ideas, but i don't want you to capitalize on them in the end, right? Well, i mean you, i wont mind, because i think you definitely deserve it, and i am so going to try to hang out with you if i ever go to Cali, and i hope you can find some spare time, and would maybe not mind hanging out...

 

I guess what I had in mind when I said humility was that people seem to expect me not to say anything when I am 100% sure of something. The problem clearly seems to me to be that they don't realize just how clearly I understand the thing I am talking about. Not because I am not explaining it well, but more because they have some wall of ignorance preventing them from listening based on their belief that no-one could understand that topic so clearly or perhaps that no one in my position could. Thus they interpret it as arrogance or a lack of humility.

 

Krim, i would expect nothing less of you and i greatly respect people like yourself, ones who will speak if they are sure of something, regardless of whether or not it goes against what everyone else is thinking, etc. I am very much the same, and i think its a good quality. I also know that people dont appreciate that, or sometimes find it offensive, or hostile, or maybe even shovenistic, but you need to have people who will understand you, if you have people who understand you, the rest matter little...

 

Also i know what that feels like, i know what it feels like when someone capitalizes on your ideas, and i know when someone takes your ideas and presents them to be their own to be accepted into some upper echelons of the work force, while you are discarded like a wrapper. Marx puts its well, "The categories of bourgeois economy consist of such like forms. They are forms of thought expressing with social validity the conditions and relations of a definite, historically determined mode of production, viz., the production of commodities. The whole mystery of commodities, all the magic and necromancy that surrounds the products of labour as long as they take the form of commodities, vanishes therefore, so soon as we come to other forms of production."

 

In your end of the world example, consider this position as well, say you live in a world where nobody sees, but you posess a gift and you can see, how do you explain to all the people what it is like seeing things, if you see that a ceiling is about to cave in, how do you explain to a crowd of people, who not only do not see, but also are very skeptical of your gift, that you see that the roof is about to collapse? What happens when someone who trusted your judgement, molds your words and takes advantage of it to rescue people and gets awarded by you, and nothing you say will change how others view that person? Now then, unless you find people who work with you and trust you, i would say, even though you saved those people, you may be more encouraged to look another way next time, wouldn't you say?

 

I dunno, i'm thinking out loud...

[modest]

In reality the person who speaks is motivated by knowledge, and the person who doesn't is motivated to do so by ignorance. Nothing like humility comes into play.

But, you certainly don't think that's always the case? Is there no case where someone is motivated by knowledge, is not unduly humble or cowardly, and remains silent?

 

The quickest way to teach a toddler that fire is hot and the candle is dangerous is to say nothing as the kid reaches for it.

 

~modest

[Zythryn]

I do not think your definition is the general definition most people think of when you say 'humility' or 'humble'.

However, given YOUR definition, I would agree with you.

I humbly submit though, that your definition is incorrect, you may as well say 'Blue + Red= Yellow' (because MY definition of Yellow is a combination of red and blue' ;oP

[lawcat]

Simply put, it is cowardice not to share knowledge that you have with others because you are afraid they will be offended that you believe you know more than they.

 

Especially when that knowledge can benefit others.

 

Let me simplify that:

 

If:

you are afraid

 

then:

 

Simply put, it is cowardice

 

 

OK! It's hard to argue against that.

[Kriminal99]

But, you certainly don't think that's always the case? Is there no case where someone is motivated by knowledge, is not unduly humble or cowardly, and remains silent?

 

The quickest way to teach a toddler that fire is hot and the candle is dangerous is to say nothing as the kid reaches for it.

 

~modest

 

Well you could say in that scenario that the person didn't know how to teach the kid without letting him experience it himself and be harmed. I learned that very lesson in the manner which you describe, but in my case it was IMMEDIATELY after my mom told me not to touch the stove that I laid my hand flat on it. If she said that it would feel like the time I fell and scratched my arm all over my hand maybe it would have worked.

 

Another case is when working in some kind of group, there are often people that understand 90% of the subject and perhaps I do as well. But if no one expresses what they know, and everyone's 90% is different, then the end result of our work could be up to 10*number of people % incorrect depending on how the work is distributed. Thus being expressive about what you know in this case isn't assuming everyone but you is stupid, but rather is making sure everyone is on the same page. Ignorance of this leadership tactic is another reason why someone would remain silent or not act.

 

What I mean is, you know something, and you say something about it, and then someone has an attitude like "Well gee I would love to run around telling everyone how it is but that is arrogant", as if you are doing it just to get people to pay attention to you. When really you are doing it to convey useful information.

[Kriminal99]

I do not think your definition is the general definition most people think of when you say 'humility' or 'humble'.

However, given YOUR definition, I would agree with you.

I humbly submit though, that your definition is incorrect, you may as well say 'Blue + Red= Yellow' (because MY definition of Yellow is a combination of red and blue' ;oP

 

Because formal definitions are required to use in this type of reasoning. The textbook definition of humility is either circular, has no clear meaning, and/or is trivial and does not reflect how it is used depending on how you try to look at it.

 

Wiki: Humility is the quality of being humble: modest, not proud, self-abasing.

 

It is not un-humble to convey information, nor must pride be involved. Self-abasing isn't usually considered a necessary quality for humility, and doing this is often counter productive.

 

Textbook definitions of the word seem to miss the mark completely when addressing situations where someone criticizes another person's lack of humility.

[Kriminal99]

I don't know whether you've ever seen that effect in action. Personally, I doubt it. If a manager takes strongly against an idea for whatever reason, nobody at that firm, especially the manager himself, is ever going to accept that it might have been valid.

 

Sit in on a few high-level meetings and you might change your mind about that one. MOST of the talk comes from people who don't know what they're talking about. :rolleyes:

 

Because people have short memories and also when dealing with abstract ideas it is not always obvious that someone is making use of an idea that they previously disagreed with.

 

Well, when someone is ignorant and they talk anyways, they are clearly knowledgeable from their own perspective. The key difference is that when you present to them the information that disproves what they believe, they stop talking. If you do this and the person tries to reason around what you are saying, it might be because they know something that you don't.