The calculus of ignorance

IF 5.1 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Behavioural Public Policy Pub Date : 2022-03-08 DOI:10.1017/bpp.2022.6
Thomas T. Hills
{"title":"The calculus of ignorance","authors":"Thomas T. Hills","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2022.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At least a minority of people consider it morally offensive for someone to tell them about the negative environmental impact of their own diet, especially when that diet has a greater negative impact (Bose et al., 2020). Less than a quarter of people at risk of Huntington’s disease elect to determine if they are a carrier of the lethal gene even though most who find out the answer, whether positive or negative, are happier than those who remain uncertain (Wiggins et al., 1992). On these and many other topics, people often choose not to know. What motivates this willful ignorance, what are its implications, and what should we do about it, if anything? Why we choose not to know is the topic of a new book by Ralph Hertwig and Christoph Engel, entitled Deliberate Ignorance: Choosing Not to Know. The question: If knowledge is so important to so many things – democracy, the environment, making choices in one’s own best interest – then what is the psychological basis for deliberate ignorance? The book itself is a model of scientific crowdsourcing, collecting more than 40 of the world’s experts on topics such as cognitive science, law, biology, history, bioethics, and economics, with the goal of laying out a foundation for starting to understand why it is that we often don’t want to know. In a leading chapter, Dagmar Ellerbrock and Ralph Hertwig set the stage with the case of the Stasi files. During the era of the German Democratic Republic, East Germany’s Secret Police – the Stasi –relied on civilian informers to provide information about who was disloyal to the party. Those living in East Germany could expect family members, friends, colleagues, even their spouses to potentially be an informer, providing information about them to the Stasi. This information along with who the informers were was collected in the Stasi files. After East Germany ceased to exist as a political entity, the Stasi files were eventually made public. A curious individual could go and look up their own file and discover who among their networkof friends and family was an informant, what information was provided, and what impact it had. But would you want to know? Should you even be allowed to know? Opinions are deeply divided, and as Ellerbrock and Hertwig’s chapter reveals in somewhat spine-tingling detail – imagine if you had been an informer – the history of the Stasi files is marked by controversy and incredible twists and turns.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioural Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2022.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

At least a minority of people consider it morally offensive for someone to tell them about the negative environmental impact of their own diet, especially when that diet has a greater negative impact (Bose et al., 2020). Less than a quarter of people at risk of Huntington’s disease elect to determine if they are a carrier of the lethal gene even though most who find out the answer, whether positive or negative, are happier than those who remain uncertain (Wiggins et al., 1992). On these and many other topics, people often choose not to know. What motivates this willful ignorance, what are its implications, and what should we do about it, if anything? Why we choose not to know is the topic of a new book by Ralph Hertwig and Christoph Engel, entitled Deliberate Ignorance: Choosing Not to Know. The question: If knowledge is so important to so many things – democracy, the environment, making choices in one’s own best interest – then what is the psychological basis for deliberate ignorance? The book itself is a model of scientific crowdsourcing, collecting more than 40 of the world’s experts on topics such as cognitive science, law, biology, history, bioethics, and economics, with the goal of laying out a foundation for starting to understand why it is that we often don’t want to know. In a leading chapter, Dagmar Ellerbrock and Ralph Hertwig set the stage with the case of the Stasi files. During the era of the German Democratic Republic, East Germany’s Secret Police – the Stasi –relied on civilian informers to provide information about who was disloyal to the party. Those living in East Germany could expect family members, friends, colleagues, even their spouses to potentially be an informer, providing information about them to the Stasi. This information along with who the informers were was collected in the Stasi files. After East Germany ceased to exist as a political entity, the Stasi files were eventually made public. A curious individual could go and look up their own file and discover who among their networkof friends and family was an informant, what information was provided, and what impact it had. But would you want to know? Should you even be allowed to know? Opinions are deeply divided, and as Ellerbrock and Hertwig’s chapter reveals in somewhat spine-tingling detail – imagine if you had been an informer – the history of the Stasi files is marked by controversy and incredible twists and turns.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
无知的演算
至少有少数人认为,有人告诉他们自己饮食对环境的负面影响在道德上是冒犯的,尤其是当这种饮食产生更大的负面影响时(Bose等人,2020)。不到四分之一的亨廷顿舞蹈症高危人群选择确定自己是否是致命基因的携带者,尽管大多数找到答案的人,无论是阳性还是阴性,都比那些仍然不确定的人更快乐(Wiggins等人,1992)。在这些和许多其他话题上,人们往往选择不知道。是什么激发了这种故意的无知,它的含义是什么,如果有什么不同的话,我们应该怎么办?拉尔夫·赫特维格(Ralph Hertwig)和克里斯托夫·恩格尔(Christoph Engel)的新书《故意无知:选择不知道》(Considere Ignorance:Choice not know)的主题是我们为什么选择不知道。问题是:如果知识对许多事情如此重要——民主、环境、为自己的最大利益做出选择——那么故意无知的心理基础是什么?这本书本身就是一个科学众包的典范,收集了40多位世界上认知科学、法律、生物学、历史、生物伦理学和经济学等主题的专家,目的是为开始理解我们通常不想知道的原因奠定基础。在开头的一章中,达格玛·艾勒布罗克和拉尔夫·赫特维格以斯塔西档案案为舞台。在德意志民主共和国时代,东德的秘密警察——斯塔西——依靠平民告密者来提供谁对党不忠的信息。那些生活在东德的人可能会期望家人、朋友、同事,甚至他们的配偶成为告密者,向斯塔西提供有关他们的信息。这些信息以及告密者是谁都被收集在斯塔西的档案中。东德作为一个政治实体不复存在后,斯塔西的档案最终被公开。好奇的人可以去查阅自己的档案,发现他们的朋友和家人网络中谁是线人,提供了什么信息,以及产生了什么影响。但是你想知道吗?你应该被允许知道吗?意见分歧很大,正如埃勒布罗克和赫特维格的章节所揭示的那样——想象一下,如果你是一名告密者——斯塔西档案的历史充满了争议和令人难以置信的曲折。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
2.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The effect of timers and precommitments on handwashing: a randomised controlled trial in a kitchen laboratory Beliefs, observability and donation revision in charitable giving: evidence from an online experiment The paradox of disclosure: shifting policies from revealing to resolving conflicts of interest Harnessing heterogeneity in behavioural research using computational social science Deception aversion, communal norm violation and consumer responses to prosocial initiatives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1