Wednesday 10 June 2020
Taught to be obtuse
Is it possible to teach people to be obtuse? Of course it is in numerous ways, but mainly we do it by inducing allegiances. To defend an allegiance it is often necessary to be so obtuse that its defects become invisible and cannot be rendered visible by even the clearest logic or the most obvious facts.
It is also possible to teach intelligent people to be obtuse to such an extent that the social and economic value of their intelligence is severely compromised. In some cases the value of their intelligence can be negative – we’d be better off if they kept quiet and did something useful such as composing crosswords. For example there are many celebrities we could advantageously do without. I’m not sure how many could compose crosswords though.
It is also possible for people to want the certainty that an obtuse outlook confers. We see lots of evidence of that in bureaucracies, TV and mainstream media. Bureaucracies invent new flavours of obtuseness all the time. Nutty flavours are popular at the moment.
The issue is not a dichotomy between obtuse and acute because obtuse people can be acute in different situations. They may acutely defend their own obtuseness too – although that isn’t common. Some common situations demand an obtuse outlook to begin with. Climate change is as ever a good example.
It is quite possible that Prince Charles is not what one would ordinarily call obtuse, but in his concern for climate change he is. A Prince Charles clone born a century earlier might not be so obtuse. He may find some other form of obtuseness of course. Claiming that railways will destroy the entire world by 1930 for example. That kind of obtuseness.
We also teach children how to be obtuse. Not to be obtuse as such, but to recognise when it may be appropriate to seem obtuse. Later they may learn to be obtuse in more adult ways - perhaps permanently or perhaps temporarily. Temporary but only erased by age and experience is common. Permanent is also common.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Obtuse or acute: everyone's got their angle.
"Obtuse or acute: everyone's got their angle."
Right...
I had the "pleasure" to meet Charles when at school, as he toured the Science & Technology department.
He inadvertently revealed an ignorance and seeming inability to understand even very basic science, so it's no surprise he falls for all the modern scams, like Climate nonsense, believing Homeopathy, etc.
King Charles the Third-rate will be good for amusement value, but little else.
Being "acute" often means being "quick on the uptake"; but, of course, there's little value in quickly taking up something that is wrong or pointless. I suspect lots of people in the public eye are in that position. They are good - often very good - at what made them famous. As a result, they are fair game for scammers and time-wasters and chancers who put rubbish in front of them and encourage them to hoover it up with their sharp intellects.
I'd rather we had more people around who were a bit duller, but who have good judgement and a honed ability to see what is worth leaving alone.
Add every oncologist with a twitter account to the list. Undoubtedly very intelligent people when it comes to cancer cells but about as sharp as Alf Garnett when they spout about politics, history real life etc
Jannie - but is it the right angle?
Scrobs - ...angle.
Ed - interesting, yet it is easy enough for anyone to acquire the basics. I'm sure that's one of our problems - many influential people have little factual understanding of the real world.
Sam - and it is possible to be too quick. Even a few seconds of reflection can make a major difference but some people must respond immediately, apparently because they can. Not always people we would think of as acute.
Graeme - yes, eminence in one field seems to create enough confidence to wander into others and pontificate on the basis of not much.
Post a Comment