Like Hamlet's ultimate question "To Be Or Not To Be," today's precursor question may be "To Know Or Not to Know." The proverbial "ships of state" are all sailing down the proverbial Niagara River, and the proverbial occupants have a choice "to know or not to know" what is ahead.
Not a very important issue in view of the pressures of day-to-day priorities such as work-life balance, family priorities, nutrition management, healthcare issues, anxieties about financial security, anxieties about economic trends not going our way, anxieties about political trends not going our way, getting that promotion, getting that raise, socializing with colleagues after a hard day's work, anxieties about children's future, heading to the gym, doing the laundry, taking the trash out, taking the kids to daycare, picking the kids from daycare, etc., etc., etc. On the other hand, "to know or not to know" is a dilemma profoundly important and yearning for resolution if one accepts the scenario of the looming proliferation of cascades of catastrophic system failures facing humanity in this century.
In an age characterized by an incessant flow of information, it may seem counterintuitive to discuss the motivation behind not knowing. With modern communications technology available to most humans on the planet, ignorance today is a choice. However, this phenomenon is increasingly relevant in contemporary society. The rationale behind the desire to remain uninformed or selectively ignorant encompasses a complex interplay of psychological, social, and practical factors. How many times in our life have we resorted to the crutch "Sorry, I was too busy" to keep up with the latest critical developments in human affairs?
Could psychological comfort be a possible motivation? One of the primary reasons individuals may be motivated not to know is psychological comfort. Cognitive dissonance theory tells us that people experience discomfort when they hold conflicting beliefs or when new information challenges their existing worldview. To alleviate this discomfort, individuals may choose to avoid information that contradicts their beliefs. This selective exposure helps maintain a sense of mental equilibrium and consistency.
Moreover, the concept of "information overload" is pertinent here. In today's digital era, the sheer volume of information available can be overwhelming. By deliberately avoiding certain information, individuals can reduce anxiety and stress associated with processing excessive data. This selective ignorance serves as a coping mechanism to handle the cognitive demands of the information-intensive environment we live in. We choose to know what we want to know. Remember the cognitive dissonance called "confirmation bias."
Then there are social dynamics at play. In fact, social dynamics play a significant role in the motivation not to know. Group identity and social cohesion often hinge on shared beliefs and values. New information that threatens these shared constructs can lead to social friction or even ostracism. To maintain harmony within a group, individuals may consciously choose to remain ignorant of facts that could disrupt social unity. How many times in our life have we resorted to the crutch "Oh! I didn't know that?"
Additionally, the desire for social acceptance and approval can drive people to avoid information that might position them contrary to the prevailing views of their social circle. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the context of social media, where echo chambers and filter bubbles reinforce existing beliefs and discourage exposure to dissenting viewpoints.
Remember the hazards of the cognitive dissonance of "heuristic-based" decision-making. In an age when cultural norms, with the aid of modern communications technology, facilitate humanity's addiction to inanity and banality, heterodox thinking requires significant investments in empirical knowledge and awareness. Ask yourself, do we make the effort "to know?"
Could there be practical considerations justifying our preference not to know? From a practical standpoint, the motivation not to know can be linked to the concept of "bounded rationality," introduced by Herbert A. Simon. Bounded rationality suggests that individuals make decisions based on a limited understanding of the world due to constraints on time, cognitive capacity, and access to information. In this framework, not knowing can be seen as a rational strategy to conserve cognitive resources and make more expedient decisions. In other words, nowadays, with all the tech we have, it's so easy to get caught up in mindless and boring stuff. So, if you want to maximize the power of your brain, i.e., think, you must put in the effort to learn and stay informed. This responsibility belongs to you, exclusively.
For instance, in professional settings, employees might avoid certain information to remain focused on their specific roles and responsibilities. Overloading oneself with extraneous information can lead to decreased productivity and decision-making efficiency. Micromanagers tend to suffer from this cognitive bias. By selectively filtering information, individuals can better manage their tasks and responsibilities. Precision focus is always battling the incessant barrage of seemingly irrelevant information coming at us. This challenges our cognitive skills to differentiate between what is a "must know" versus what is a "nice to know."
Touchy are the highly subjective areas of Ethical and Moral Dimensions. The ethical and moral dimensions of the motivation not to know are complex and multifaceted. On one hand, ignorance can be a deliberate choice to avoid moral dilemmas or ethical conflicts. For example, consumers might choose not to investigate the labor practices behind their favorite products to avoid the moral discomfort associated with supporting unethical practices.
On the other hand, willful ignorance can have significant ethical implications, particularly when it comes to social and political issues. Choosing not to know about systemic injustices or environmental crises can perpetuate harm and hinder progress. In this context, the motivation not to know can be seen as a form of moral disengagement, where individuals distance themselves from the ethical consequences of their actions or inactions. Self-abdication of moral and ethical accountabilities permits us to take comfort from pseudo-diffidence. In other words, when we abandon our moral and ethical responsibilities, we can take comfort in our willful ignorance and pretend to be humble.
Finally, the motivation not to know is a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by psychological comfort, social dynamics, practical considerations, and ethical dimensions. While selective ignorance can serve as a coping mechanism and a strategy for managing cognitive resources, it also raises important ethical questions about responsibility and accountability. Understanding the rationale behind the desire to remain uninformed can shed light on broader societal trends and help us navigate the complexities of the information age. As we move forward, it is crucial to strike a balance between protecting our mental well-being and staying informed about the world around us. Remember the words of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, "Few are guilty, but all are responsible."
Which then raises the big “elephant in the room” question: when scarcity becomes a global reality, and the epoch of abundance becomes a faint silhouette in our rearview mirrors, and inflation runs amok beyond the controls of the "wise" policymakers, and catastrophic structural failures proliferate in "cascades" and empathy morphs into apathy, will altruism prevail among humans?
Think about it!