Ignorance and Apathy

[Luigison]

What's your take on this age old question? 

[Glorb]

Considering I'm a huge supporter of apathy, I'll say ignorance is worse.

[Luigison]

So far everyone has voted ignorance as being worse and I agree, but it'll be a little surprising if no one here subscribes to the "ignorance is bliss" concept.

[Chupperson Weird]

I can't respect the choice to remain ignorant. Even if you don't care, you still need to know.

[Turtlekid1]

Apathy is so much worse.  I was thinking of moral issues when I voted.

[bobman37]

I voted for I Don't Know And I Don't Care because of the sweet irony.

[Luigison]

I voted for I Don't Know And I Don't Care because of the sweet irony.

I don't know and I don't care.     - 0 (0%)

[TEM]

He REALLY doesn't care.

[Markio]

I voted that ignorance is worse.  Ignorance may be bliss, but not for everyone around the ignorant person.

Plus, if you're ignorant but not apathetic, that means you'd take action against things you don't fully understand.  Like lynching in the South--they killed people because of their race, but didn't understand that race is a socially constructed myth that forces people against their will into unfounded hierarchies of superior and inferior people regardless of one's true capacity to be a self-actualized human.

Suppose you're well-informed, but apathetic.  You won't to anything to better society, but you probably won't proactively go out and hurt people either.  I'm not saying it's not wrong to recognize injustice without taking action to stop it.  That's really bad too.  But less harm will be done.  Less of everything will be done.

I guess being apathetic is worse IF you recognize when you're ignorant and so take action to become less ignorant.  It's really best to be neither.  Or maybe both.

[ShadowBrain]

"What's the difference between ignorance, apathy, and ambivalence?"
"I don't know and I don't care either way."

But really, apathy's worse. With ignorance, at least there's the possibility you have the drive to learn.

[Chupperson Weird]

I think we need some clear cut definition of what Luigison meant, although I think I knew what he meant already.

[Pt_Peach]

I voted ignorance because being around ignorant people and hearing them speak can really drive you nuts.

[Robert]

I voted apathy. Knowledge is nothing without the drive to use it.

[Sqrt2]

Neither. they are both as bad as each other.

[A]

How much ignorance? How much apathy? If one is so apathetic that one does not breathe, or if one is so ignorant that one does not know to breathe, one will die either way. Questions like this only reveal what the answerer sees more of in the world and in him or herself, not which fundamental concept is more dangerous at an abstract level.

For the record, I chose apathy. I could justify it by saying that an ignoramus cannot become unignorant if he is too apathetic to do so, but anyone could then bring up the hypothetical case of a man too ignorant to know that he is apathetic and therefore does not even know that he ought to care. So it's really just my personal preference.

Word.

[PaperLuigi]

I'd venture to say that an apathetic hateful person is preferable over an ignorant one.

[Turtlekid1]

Coming back to this thread now, I think I would say that apathy is worse because ignorance is easier to cure (assuming it's actual ignorance and not bias).

[PaperLuigi]

assuming it's actual ignorance and not bias.

A bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective without empirical evidence or knowledge. So I would say that the two exist in an interrelated causal relationship where bias is understood as a consequence of ignorance.

Just my two cents.

[Turtlekid1]

I guess I should have worded that as "assuming it's solely ignorance without bias as a factor."  Bias will often outlive genuine ignorance.

[PaperLuigi]

Is it really a bias though if there's no ignorance involved? I'd call it a sound stance in that case.

[Turtlekid1]

Even if it's incorrect?

[PaperLuigi]

A sound stance is correct. An incorrect stance is a bias and is therefore ignorant.

So if I postulate that two plus two equals five, I am biased because my position has no empirical evidence to support it. A biased position would be one based entirely on feeling (at least according to Richard Dworkin).

[Turtlekid1]

What I'm saying is that ignorance causes bias, but bias, being based only on feeling, will often override knowledge.  Ignorance does not equal bias, though.  You can be honestly ignorant without being biased, and you can be biased in one direction even if you know the other is correct.

[PaperLuigi]

What I'm saying is that ignorance causes bias, but bias, being based only on feeling, will often override knowledge. 

You're correct in asserting that feelings sometime get in the way of what we know to be true. You're confusing bias with deception though.

Ignorance does not equal bias, though.  You can be honestly ignorant without being biased

Does that person have no worldviews then? Biases are essentially positions that arise out of ignorance.

you can be biased in one direction even if you know the other is correct.

I'd call that being intentionally deceptive. If I understand four to be the product of two times two, yet I claim that it's not, it's not a bias.

[Turtlekid1]

Bias is basically self-deception, so that's not inaccurate.

[PaperLuigi]

A biased person lacks any knowledge whatsoever as opposed to the self-deceiver who is more or less knowledgeable of something yet chooses to deny the truth of it anyway.

[Turtlekid1]

So it really depends on how you define "biased."

[Insane Steve]

Ignorance isn't that hard to cure.
Apathy is a bit harder.
Bias is nigh impossible to cure.

[Black Mage]

A biased person lacks any knowledge whatsoever as opposed to the self-deceiver who is more or less knowledgeable of something yet chooses to deny the truth of it anyway.

The word "bias" has nothing to do with ignorance or a lack of knowledge. You can become biased by being ignorant, but the word itself doesn't imply ignorance.

[A]

Biases lead you to conclusions regardless of the evidence. Bias cannot be cured with information alone, as that new information will only be used as more fuel for the same conclusions. If one means to treat bias with information, it must at least be a carefully-planned surgical strike of information, yo.

Of course, if the person is apathetic, it won't matter what information you give them.