Most random curiosity does not, and should not, seek more than satisficing. It’s better than knowing no answers, and better than trying to dive deep on everything indiscriminately.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing sure, but I prefer it to elites+illiterates condition.
Conversation
Replying to
Well, if the standard is “satisfying random curiosity” then yes, Wikipedia is the best thing ever. But if the standard is producing more knowledgeable (the OP said “better informed”) citizens, I beg to differ.
1
1
Replying to
They *are* better informed. Just not about the things *you* think they ought to better informed about.
Things that will give them more agency and opportunities and community in their own lives. “Better citizenship” is your priority for them.
2
2
I think Nils and you are talking about slightly different things: his "knowledge" is more in line with how it works in soc-sci or philosophy, where you are expected to understand the heritage of an idea and how it responds to everything that came before it
1
Wikipedia does encourage people to acquire CliffsNotes-style overviews of things, which is excellent for maths and physics (the radius of the first orbit in a hydrogen atom needs no context) but perhaps less so for the kind of "liberal arts" knowledge that citizenship goes with
3
2
I barely ever use Wikipedia for science/math. I mostly use it for social science/humanities where I’d otherwise have known nothing, not read a book.
2
1
2
I think you’re demonstrating my point: if Wikipedia didn’t exist, maybe you’d actually read a book. And then you’d be much better informed.
By analogy: it’s like how, when you take away a kid’s device, they go play outside — which is good for them, even if they whine about it.
3
And aha, the kid reference nails *your* key blindspot here: you’re unwilling to give up a society based on information consumption paternalism.
Adults outside formal education institutions choosing more freely what to read, and to what depth, is a net good.
2
2
God damn right. Some people know more and better than others.
1
1
I’m glad we teased out the essential difference here.
Of course some people *always* know better, and where that matters (jobs requiring that particular expertise) it should count.
2
1
Demanding higher general public knowledge on some topics is not about embodying noble collectivist values. It’s about making your job easier to do and justify.
Special interests masquerading as general public interest.
That whole way of thinking, coming out of public choice theory—that expertise and public-mindedness should be assumed a ruse for self-promotion and rent-seeking until proven otherwise—is one of the most pernicious lines of thought ever developed, IMO. But I’m boarding a plane...
1
Hah by rules of twitter engagement I win by plane-boarding clause
1
1
Show replies


