Does "willful ignorance" exist?

Racism.

Walking away then wondering whether or not you locked the car. If you take the chance rather than walk back it’s willful ignorance.

Climate change. Government officials deny it every day.

@syz Not sure there. Let’s say Tom is a racist. He believes “the foreigners” are trying to steal his job. He loves to beat them up. Now either,

a) He honestly feels threatened by immigrants, and believes them to be of less value. That’s ignorant, but why is it willful?

b) He is being dishonest. He knows that immigrants are just locals somewhere else, but is pretending not to know. In this scenario, he is not ignorant.

@Pachy The same reasoning applies. Either the deniers are dishonest, or they are ignorant.

@stanleybmanly Hm…I’m thinking.

My sister in law is a fairly intelligent person, and she knows my family history of heart disease. Yet she insists that meat has to be served with every meal. My brother says he has resistant high cholesterol. Bullshit, he has a lousy diet. They are so deluded.

Lots of people believe commercials, just because it appeals to a need or desire they have. They ignore the fact that if everyone could get rich on real estate with no personal assets to start, we would not have need for food banks and homeless shelters. One product or service after another people choose to ignore the obvious for hope of something wonderful.

@Here2_4 Or there’s the lottery players. I see so many people doing scratch offs.

We all either choose what we learn or it is forced upon us. Now I haven’t thought about it, but If you were to offer to teac me Sanskrit I would probably choose ignorance. When the Jehovah’s Witnesses offer to teach me the “truth” I usually decline.

@Adirondackwannabe Delusion is a good term. If your brother really is deluded, though, he is not being willfully ignorant. He is just ignorant. If he is pretending to believe in his power to fight off cholesterol, then he is not even ignorant…just deceptive, maybe.

@Here2_4 If they believe the commercials, though, they are not willfully ignoring other facts. They are overpowered by the facts they are paying attention to.

@stanleybmanly So, your definition of willful ignorance is something like,
“Declining to gain certainty/knowledge”? Interesting. Applied to climate change deniers and racists, though, I think it’s likely that someone has taught these people their beliefs.

Nah, they don’t believe the commercials. They ignore the things they know, and hope the product or service has something to offer them.

Certainly. It is pretty common.
For example, the belief that politicians are looking out for you, like a benevolent rich uncle, as opposed to saying and doing anything at all to accomplish their selfish desire to have access to power, perks and privileges. The Universal, eternal and timeless willful ignorance.

No. To act like you’re ignorant when you’re not is you’re just intentionally trying to be misleading. Actually being ignorant is a condition one is not aware of.

Since retiring from the Telecom industry, I have willfully stopped keeping up on advancements and changes in my former occupation. I don’t want to know. I want to be an end-user for a change.

@longgone He claims it’s a genetic condition. I look at his diet and I think it’s so far from genetic.

My immediate reaction was, “Of course people can be willfully ignorant!” Then I ‘got’ your argument. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Can you decide – will yourself – to have a lack of knowledge on a subject? Absolutely.

Your example of smokers is prime. In my experience, smokers say, “Everybody’s got to die of something.” and avoid the statistics and science that proves smokers are shortening their natural lifespan with every puff.
Everyone dies.
Not every smoker dies of smoking related disease.
George Burns smoked into his 90’s.
Smoker: “I’ll take my chances.”

Willful ignorance is choosing not to be educated on a subject where you know one of your sacred beliefs (or habits/addictions) is going to be disproved. Religion, all the “ism’s”, and pretty much all the examples given above are examples of “willful ignorance”, or the decision to not allow yourself to be informed on a subject you have already taken a resolute (albeit possibly irrational) stance on.

Sure. I think so.

If I know that there is an area of knowledge that I do not possess yet I choose to not obtain that knowledge, aren’t I intentionally remaining ignorant? I know that I know nothing about how am automobile works, yet I am so disinterested that I am intentionally (willfully) ignorant on the subject.

In my opinion willful ignorance means you know better but you just don’t give a damn. haha
It really is that simple.

My wife and computers.

You definitely can be willfully ignorant. You can not know something and not care to know because you have created your own truth. A prime example is George Bush and the supposed WMDs in Iraq. He had no idea of whether there were WMDs and did not care particularly one way or the other. He had made up his mind to invade for entirely different reasons. WMDs were just an excuse and their ultimate existence or non-existence was not a matter of any concern. Any attempt to find out the truth would be counter-productive, because he might be confronted with finding out that what he was saying was in fact untrue. “I have already made up my mind, so don’t bother me with the facts.”

The philosopher Harry G Frankfurt says this attitude is what is meant by BS. He thinks this attitude is widely prevalent and has written a book on the subject.

All right, I think I’m getting closer. So, what’s needed for willful ignorance is the knowledge of one’s ignorance. I’m willfully ignorant on much of the bible, because I never saw reason to explore it much.

Does willful ignorance only exist when the ignorant person actually says, “I don’t know a lot about this.”? Would I still be willfully ignorant if I believed to know the contents of the bible by heart, but imagined them to be a description of the world of Narnia?

GA’s, thanks for helping me understand this!

It is a combination of the two that constitutes willful ignorance in its most malignant form. It is knowing that you are ignorant of the bible and at the same time deciding that it is like Narnia without ever opening the bible to verify if you are right. It is different from outright lying, because when you lie you know for sure that what you are saying is wrong, In the case of willful ignorance, you don’t know and don’t care whether it is true or not.

@longgone: “Would I still be willfully ignorant if I believed to know the contents of the bible by heart, but imagined them to be a description of the world of Narnia?”

This sounds like delusion to me – a rather extreme one. We’re full of delusion, but I can’t imagine believing that I know all of the words to a song I have never heard. This seems to exclude intention, and therefore I’m not sure how “willfully” fits in.

To me, willful ignorance is being ignorant and unwilling to rectify that ignorance.
For example, evolution deniers.
They reject evolution, know nothing of evolution, and are unwilling to learn even the basics of evolution.

@ragingloli – Can this apply to people who accept evolution as well? What if a person accepts evolution but is unwilling to learn anything about it?

In both cases, the people would be ignorant – and intentionally so. But the person accepting evolution just happens to be accidentally correct.

@DoNotKnow
yes.

@DoNotKnow My example may have been too crass, but yes, that answers my question – intention is needed for the “willful” part to apply. This sounds simplistic, but I think it is often overlooked.

@ragingloli If someone really knows nothing about evolution, how does “willfulness” apply, though? I’m going to just assume you know nothing about my theory of medieval unicorns. You’re ignorant. Are you being willfully ignorant as soon as you refuse to research my point? In that case, aren’t we all being willfully ignorant almost all the time?

Let’s take evolution. I believe in evolution, but I have no more than a rudimentary knowledge of it. I don’t spend my time learning more about it, at this moment, because I’m busy doing other things and the issue isn’t pressing to me. If I attempted to argue about evolution with a biologist, I wouldn’t stand a chance. The biologist could accuse me of being willfully ignorant, right? I’m struggling to understand who is not being willfully ignorant, then, though. We all pick and choose what we learn about. We all have some things we believe in all the time, don’t we?

I’m sorry if I’m not making a lot of sense. I’m still very confused about all this.

@longgone – I think you’re question is a great one, but part of me thinks that the concept “willfully ignorant” is not a particularly useful one.

@longgone: “In that case, aren’t we all being willfully ignorant almost all the time?”

I think so, yes. But we also employ systems of knowledge and specialization so that everyone doesn’t need to be extremely knowledgable about everything. We can pretty sure that the scientific process will do a pretty decent job of understanding reality. So, if you aren’t familiar with the details of evolution, it isn’t unreasonable for you to accept scientific consensus.

But I’m questioning the utility of the description “willfully ignorant”. It seems that it may be primarily used to describe a person who is holding a position that is opposed to our own. And if we are frequently ignorant – and intentionally so – then it’s a descriptor that may be so widely applicable as to be ineffective or redundant. However, in the case of ignorance – I think this is useful. We should all embrace this concept, as it’s nothing to be ashamed of. The smartest people I know are the most likely to admit the enormity of their ignorance.

Not getting a mammogram.

I believe that willful ignorance does exist.

If one listens to opposing views and disagrees for reasons that could be construed as merely a different interpretation of facts, that’s a different matter as they are at least open to the possibility of having facts alter their thinking when/if they feel that the weight of evidence justifies doing so. That’s willful, but not ignorant.

But there are people who adamantly refuse to ever have their opinion swayed in the slightest by even the most compelling of evidence to the contrary. Their dogma prevents them from critical thinking as they feel they already know all there is to know. When one decides that the reality in their head is more complete than actual reality and thus tunes out anything that might make them re-think (or even think in the first place), that’s willful ignorance.

@DoNotKnow Thanks, and yes. This, exactly: “If we are frequently ignorant – and intentionally so – then it’s a descriptor that may be so widely applicable as to be ineffective or redundant.”

Not sure I understand your last couple of sentences. Are you saying that the willful ignorance which does exist – like, for example, not getting a mammogram or my being disinclined to study evolution – are nothing to be ashamed of?

@jca In some cases, I think I’d agree.

@jerv “They feel they already know all there is to know.”
If they really do feel that there is nothing left no know, I don’t think we can call them willfully ignorant. Ignorant, yes. The assumption that we know enough about a given topic to make up our mind, though, is very human. I think we all do that, constantly. It’s hard to operate based on the premise that you’re probably wrong.

@longgone: “Not sure I understand your last couple of sentences. Are you saying that the willful ignorance which does exist – like, for example, not getting a mammogram or my being disinclined to study evolution – are nothing to be ashamed of?”

No. In my experience, people use the term “ignorant” to mean more than just lacking knowledge (at least here in the states). However, it seems to me that we are all ignorant of approximately 99.9999999%+ of all information. In my experience, identifying our own ignorance is the act of intelligence. The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know. And when we realize that we all know nothing, really, it’s an exciting realization. It’s the fact that makes the concept of boredom obscene and impossible. And it’s the important ingredient in making sure we’re not deluded into thinking we know much.

I’m not saying we should identify our ignorance and celebrate it. Rather, we should not be embarrassed that we’re one of the 7 billion people who inhabit this planet, know almost nothing, and have the amazing opportunity to learn – for the rest of our lives.

But imagine that you walk up to someone who has just spent the past 10 years watching Fox News and getting their scientific knowledge from the pulpit, and suggested that they don’t know anything about anything really. Do you think they would be excited by this prospect, be inspired, or be humbled? No, they would likely reject the concept out of hand.

In my experience, the smartest people I know are able to acknowledge that they know shit. Once you’re convinced that ignorance is for the rest of the world, you have no more work to do. You know enough already. I suppose maybe this is what people refer to as “willfully ignorant”. I just don’t think I would use that term to describe it though. They are not aware of their ignorance, so there is no intention to remain ignorant.

Anyway, I’m just rambling at this point. I’m a bit confused about the term, have never used it, but I think I’ve had some concerns about its meaning for some time – that is, I’m not sure exactly what it means and why we should use it.

Edit: As for the mammogram and evolution comment in relation to shame – While I find that unfortunate, this actually brings up the concept of “shame”, which I’m not entirely comfortable with, especially in this context. Mostly for reasons of the concept of the self and free will, but that’s for another thread.

@longgone: Agree with not having mammograms or agree that not having them is willful ignorance?

“If they really do feel that there is nothing left no know, I don’t think we can call them willfully ignorant.”

You have a choice whether to open your mind or to be egotistical enough to shut your mind. Whenever there is choice, there is will.

“The assumption that we know enough about a given topic to make up our mind, though, is very human.”

How do you decide when you’ve learned enough to be so convinced you’re right that you not only no longer accept new input, but actually go above and beyond to refute the validity of any challenge to your position without even bothering to address the challenge itself?

For me, there are very few things I am that convinced of. I keep my mind open enough to at least listen to valid criticisms and have been known to alter my views accordingly. There was a time when I believed that the Sun was the absolute biggest star in the Universe, and that there was nothing smaller than protons. I willfully decided to open myself to enlightenment to lessen my ignorance.

“It’s hard to operate based on the premise that you’re probably wrong.”

No, it isn’t. Knowing that there is a high probability I am wrong is what compels me to learn more in order to minimize that chance. It’s also what makes be do things like double-check that I actually have my keys before leaving the house; I might be wrong about them still being in my pocket, and I’d rather assume I’m wrong and verify one way or the other than assume I’m right and lock myself out.

Fascinating evolution in this thread about the meaning of ignorance.
Ignorance doesn’t mean merely that one doesn’t know something, it involves ignoring information.

In a lot of cases people are ignorant by habit, they just don’t want to think about things or dig too deep for clarifying information. Habits like that can result in not knowing a lot of stuff that – no apology to Rumsfeld – you don’t know that you don’t know.

However, if you have an opportunity to get new information and avoid that on purpose, that’s willful ignorance.
Folks who champion a political candidate without comparing their statements to their legislative record are willfully ignorant.
Bible thumpers who would maintain that Jesus and dinosaurs existed at the same time are willfully ignorant of scientific information to the contrary.

@dabbler Generally speaking, ” Ignorance doesn’t mean merely that one doesn’t know something, it involves ignoring information” may be true, but by dictionary definition, it does not. It means “Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed.” “unaware” “Ignorant may imply a general condition but more often implies lack of knowledge of a particular thing such as a fact or a body of facts;” (from Merriam-Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.). ”...unlearned…due to or showing lack of knowledge…” (from The New Century Dictionary, 1944 ed.)
Avoiding the opportunity to get new information is wholesale stupidity or blatant arrogance, not simple defined ignorance.

@kritiper you’re right that the widespread usage is that ‘ignorant’ is synonymous with ‘unknowing’ but for my syllables if we have distinct words it’s useful to consider the difference.

Anyhow the OP is really about “willful ignorance” and a lot of us do say it exists.

@dabbler Right. Like I said: “Generally speaking…”
I didn’t say it wasn’t as per “widespread usage,” only that it wasn’t meant that way, exactly as per the dictionary. Using different words, other than “ignorance,” would be more of an exact usage of the language. See my first post.
To be “willfully ignorant” would mean that a person was acting ignorant so as to appear ignorant, but would actually not be ignorant, by exact definition, so the term “willfully ignorant” is actually redundant.
But I use “ignorant” as a description for people who obviously know, but don’t use their knowledge.
The really important thing is getting one’s point across, not quoting dictionaries word-for-word. But I’m a perfectionist and I felt it only right to throw these exacts out there for others to consider, for what they may be worth.

If willful ignorance doesn’t exist, would someone please explain bubble-think?

“The fact that they would consciously close themselves off to this key source of information came as a revelation. It’s gotten much worse in the last 10 years…. Inside the bubble, certain facts are never heard because they’re inconvenient…”

Had to leave this thread and do some thinking, I hope I’m making sense now.

@jca The latter.

@DoNotKnow Got you. The fact that none of us know anything when compared with all there is to know always excites me. It prevents me for the most part from being baffled at others’ ignorance of facts. All of us believe that we have “common sense” and “general knowledge”. If you think about it, it’s unlikely that any two human’s definitions of these two concepts are exactly alike. I feel like it is impossible not to know that Paris is the capital of France, because I can’t remember not knowing. If I counted the countries I don’t know the capitals of, I think I’d feel quite ignorant myself, and that would be much more realistic.

Yes, shame is weird.

@jerv Why does closed-mindedness exist, who teaches people to close their minds?

“I keep my mind open enough to at least listen to valid criticisms.”

On the other hand, you feel confident enough to reject criticism which you do not believe is valid. Any evolution-denier could and probably would say the same thing, wouldn’t they?

@longgone What do you think of the statement, “The Bible is true because the Bible says that it’s true!”? What would you think of accusation that Barack Obama was the gunman on the grassy knoll the day JFK was assassinated? Madrid is the capital of France, and a woman’s body can shut down in the event of rape to prevent pregnancy.

Does any of that preceding paragraph seem flippant, delusional, or “off base”? Unless you honestly believe that all of those statements have enough truth to be considered incontrovertible fact, you will agree that it’s pretty easy to consider certain arguments invalid.

Valid criticisms are one that are logically consistent and not provably wrong. If one wishes to debate whether a particular president has helped or hurt the economy, there are enough signs that either argument could be valid. If one wishes to debate whether the Earth is six thousand years old or closer to six billion though, you’re going to have to be really convincing for me to not shut you out as I feel that the “science” used by the “Young Earth” crowd is sketchy at best, and many of the people clinging to that theory cite more theology than astronomy or physics. That’s not how science works, folks!

You are correct that anyone can be as arbitrary as they want when determining whether something is valid or not, but unless one has completely lost the cheese off of their cracker, I give them the benefit of a doubt. Usually the types of arguments I dismiss as “invalid” are ones that at least 90% of people would also scoff at. I mean, quoting Bible passages or Fox News sound bites does not make an argument valid, so bring some actual facts and connect them with logic rather than just screaming about a conspiracy theory, oppression, liberal bias, religious persecution and accusing me of being a baby-eating Muslim who hates America and Jesus simply because I don’t agree with you.

Most importantly, I fully appreciate the irony in the simple truth that being truly unbiased is not humanly possible.

Knowledge is potentially disruptive. We all resist to one degree or another information that is counter to our view of the world. I remember seeing somewhere the statement, “My mind is made up. Don’t bother me with the facts.”

@jerv That’s my point – it is incredibly easy to consider an argument invalid. This is true for all of us. You and I might try to base our reasoning on scientific evidence, others listen to their preachers. I am not saying they are right, I’m saying it is wrong to call them willfully ignorant. They do not say, “I don’t want to know about this”. On the contrary. They might discuss evolution every day, with very limited knowledge of the facts and using illogical reasoning. Still, they are not trying to stay ignorant.
I’m interested in your thoughts on where closed-mindedness comes from. Do you think it’s a cultural thing at times?

@LostInParadise That I can agree with! I just don’t think it’s a conscious decision.

@LostInParadise “Do you think it’s a cultural thing at times?”

I think most of the time. On a larger scale, people tend to have traits of the community where they grew up. While there are exceptions to the rule, as an overall average certain things are statistically more likely in certain regions.

On a smaller scale, we are products of our upbringing. If someone’s family has three generations of military service, they are more likely to join the military themselves than the children of those who oppose the military-industrial complex. It also affects openmindedness in certain ways. A child who is punished for curiosity will usually become an adult who doesn’t care to learn and is more likely to believe what they are told by authority figures than one whose inquisitiveness is nurtured to become an ability for critical thinking. And we often carry our parent’s prejudices; my own mother’s prejudice taught me that Connecticut drivers were crazy long before I could even see over the steering wheel.

Closed-minded people generally have childhoods with some combination of poor education, strong religious/political indoctrination, and/or growing up in an area with other closed-minded people. Not always, but often enough to indicate a correlation between culture and how open/closed-minded one is.