Why Is It So Hard to Give Up Ignorance?

There are certain fields that I love — church history, psychology, game design, etc. — but refuse to study in depth.

The problem is, I have my own opinions and beliefs in each of those fields. I’m afraid that if I start studying, I’ll discover (a) how wrong I am, and (b) how much I’d have to learn in order to become competent in that field.

When I started programming, I would use only the most basic tools. I stayed with those tools for several years, refusing to learn the more advanced programming techniques. I told myself that I was working more efficiently that way, sticking with what I knew, but the real reason was pride. Learning to use the advanced tools would mean acknowledging that I could have been doing better work all those years.

The same thing happens with education. After having spent time in the workforce, it’s hard to go back to school, because it means admitting, “Yes, I could have had a better job all these years.” It’s easier just to say, “I love my job.”

So why is it so hard to give up ignorance? Pride, motivation, peer pressure… What’s the solution? If I were actually willing to put the effort into learning about psychology instead of just philosophizing here on this blog, I might know the answer.

Alanna’s First Dream

When Alanna wakes up in the morning, I usually ask her if she had good dreams. She says yes, but I have never been sure if she really knew what I was talking about. However, a couple of mornings ago, she woke up really excited. She ran out to tell me, “Daddy, I had a dream!” Then she went on to tell me that it was a dream of My Little Ponies (one of her favorite things). She had dreamed of a new pony, a yellow one that liked ice cream. She was so cute, with her eyes lit up — I love to see her excited about things.

The Mart of Nations

Imagine a very long hallway with doors running down both sides, kind of like this:

Behind each door is some kind of pleasant diversion. If you could, you might spend your whole life traveling the hallway and discovering the hidden joys behind each door.

Of course, you have physical needs, so the hallway would need to be equipped with certain facilities. There would need to be food vendors, restrooms, and a place to sleep when you’re tired.

More importantly, you’re not alone. The hallway is filled with billions of people — everyone on earth is there. So there need to be rules to keep peace in the hallway while everyone is busy trying to get to their doors.

At this point, the hallway starts to resemble the world we live in. It’s a busy place, full of people who are trying to make ends meet so that they can spend some time visiting the doors.

In my mind, there are two parts to the world. There is the visible, functional part. It’s made up of houses, streets, schools, offices, and cars. That is the great hallway. Isaiah uses the phrase “mart of nations”. I think that fits very well. A “mart” is the place where people gather in order to take care of their personal business needs.

Then there is the invisible part, the part that lies behind the doors. It’s conversations with friends, good books, and beautiful sunrises. It is not so much about what you see with your eyes as what you see with your mind.

Some people are comfortable in the hallway, and some people are comfortable in the doors.

What’s Up(state)?

Why does northern New York get called “upstate New York”? I’ve never heard anyone refer to upstate California or upstate Utah…

Ignorance Threshold

What makes smart kids? I don’t think it’s intelligence. It’s self-consciousness. I think everyone has an “ignorance threshold”.

Your ignorance threshold is the level of knowledge you need to have on a subject in order not to feel stupid when you’re talking to people about that subject. Some people are perfectly comfortable going on and on about things they know nothing about — that’s a high ignorance threshold, because the person is comfortable operating with a high level of ignorance. Other people won’t express an opinion on anything unless they can cite sources — that’s a low ignorance threshold.

The smart kids at school, I’ll bet, are people with low ignorance thresholds. They aren’t as concerned with being dumb as they are with looking dumb. On the other hand, there are some very intelligent people who are comfortable with a lot of ignorance. They don’t do well in school, but they do well in life. (On a related note, here’s an interesting view on the “rewarding success vs. rewarding effort” debate.)

Enduring Luxury

We had a speaker in our class last week who talked about how our sense of entitlement to luxuries is what will destroy this country’s economy. That is also a common theme in General Conference. President Monson, in 2006, taught, “avoid the philosophy that yesterday’s luxuries have become today’s necessities”.

On the other hand, many parents, myself included, hope to provide their children with a better life they had. Are these two principles in opposition to each other? What are the values that allow a nation to be sustainably prosperous?

What Does Righteousness Look Like?

Joseph Smith once said, “I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, yet deals justice to his neighbors and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, than the smooth-faced hypocrite.” This raises the question of what indicators do we use to identify righteousness. Clean language, honesty, or something else? Here are a few different measures that I’ve seen used.

Sweetness

Sweetness is, perhaps, the kind of righteousness we see promoted the most heavily at church. It’s about not offending anyone. Politeness, clean language, and avoiding the appearance of evil all fall under Sweetness. In fact, Sweetness is more about what you don’t than what you do. Disney studios used to say, “We may bore you, but we’ll never shock you.” That’s the motto of Sweetness. The mascot for Sweetness is the young quiet Mia Maid whose name you don’t remember.

Service

Service is the kind of righteousness that reaches out and isn’t afraid to get its hands dirty. Its motto, “Seek need”, means that it’s a little bit nosy, but with the best intentions. Service is active and engaged. It’s willing to give up free Saturdays and a nice car in order to share time and money with people who need it more. Service is about more than showing up to quorum service events — Service is able to reach out to help without needing to be invited. The matron saint for Service is Mother Teresa.

Purity

Purity is the kind of righteousness that focuses on keeping free from the world. It’s the ascetic path that remembers that the seeds sown into the thorns were “choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life”. Purity reads its scriptures, attends the temple, and gives up worldly pleasures in exchange for heavenly treasures. The best example I have for purity (other than the Savior, of course) is the apostle Paul.

These are three measures of righteousness. We should not judge, but it happens that we do automatically. What indicators do you find yourself using to judge people (yourself or others)? Joseph finished the quote I started with by saying, “I do not want you to think that I’m very righteous, for I am not. There was one good man, and his name was Jesus.”

Fundamentalism

“Fundamentalism” is a word that gets attached to extreme religious movements. The news talks about fundamentalist Islam, like the Taleban. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) have even embraced the word.

The defining value of fundamentalism is giving up the personal responsibility one has of making moral judgments. Fundamentalism is about handing over your moral compass to someone else.

In contrast, most reasonable people, when introduced to a moral or religious precept ask, “Does this make sense? Is this a good idea?” A fundamentalist believer bypasses that step of personal responsibility to judge the precept. Instead of asking, “Is this good?” he or she asks, “Was this spoken by an authority? If so, it must be true.”

Fundamentalism isn’t always religious in nature. Fanatical political movements, like the fascist parties of seventy years ago, are founded on those same principles. Any mass movement whose leaders’ directives cannot be questioned is, essentially, fundamentalist.

The LDS church is sometimes accused of being a fundamentalist religion. Is it? No, not at its heart. The church was founded and preached on the principles of reason; baptism for the dead, separate degrees of glory, heavenly parents — all of these have been taught on the basis that they make sense. It makes sense that God would provide salvation to all his children, even those who died without hearing the gospel. It makes sense that the afterlife is more than just one great heaven and one great hell. It makes sense that we have a Father and Mother who are, in some way, like our earthly parents.

Throughout the history of our church, our general authorities have counseled us against blind faith, and to receive their counsel with prayer and wisdom. However, the general membership of the church does sometimes manifest a fundamentalist undercurrent. We, as church members, can make more of our leaders than they make of themselves. When accusations of fundamentalism, fanaticism, or zealotry are leveled against us as church members, it is our ability to navigate between obedience and reason that proves those accusations true or false.

Alanna on the Couch with a Pencil

This morning Alanna, Asher, Lydia and I sat together on the couch watching Polly (one of my favorite Sunday morning shows). The kids had their handy dandy notebooks out so they could alternate between watching the show and drawing pictures. Here’s an example of Alanna’s fine artwork:

And, for those in need of an interpretation, here you go. The words at the top are “Alanna”, “Asher”, “Mommy”, “Daddy”, and “Lydia”. After she finished drawing the people at the bottom, she counted the five people and drew five circles. Those, apparently, are the cookies for everyone Oh, and here’s a picture of the budding artist. I hope all of you have a wonderful Sunday too!

All the People, All the Time

(This is sort of a follow-up to my previous post, where I observed that people judge a doctor based on his smile rather than his skill.)

In the IT department where I work, we use many different software systems. When it’s time to replace one of these systems, all of the programmers come to management recommending their favorite replacement system.

Management doesn’t have the time or resources to analyze the technical merits of each system, so they go with the recommendation of the programmer they like the best, who may or may not be the most technically qualified, and what should have been a technical decision becomes a political decision.

Now where I’m going with this isn’t business, but democracy. How can we effectively judge the technical abilities of each of the candidates? We can’t. So we vote for the one we like the best. We can’t judge a candidate’s technical expertise in economics or social issues or whatever — most of us are not qualified.

Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so. When we elect an executive or legislator, we elect him for his human skills — leadership, communication, values — which we can judge to some extent. Then those elected leaders form cabinets of people who (hopefully) do have the expertise to analyze the issues. They advise our leaders, and our leaders use their human skills to implement (hopefully again) good decisions.