Learning and Intelligence

Learning and Intelligence:

I have a saying on my wall at work.  It says, “Knowledge tears the world apart.  Wisdom makes it whole.”  That is from an African tribal proverb.  I expanded upon that and continued, “Intelligence is the ability to use knowledge to gain wisdom.  True learning is the practice of intelligence.”  That was written many years ago.  Today my understanding has developed some.  I would amend it to say that true learning is acquiring the intelligence to incorporate knowledge into wisdom and to then disseminate wisdom into positive technologies.  Technology in this sense isn’t limited to electronics or even machines, but to the practice of making a useful and productive difference with the development and use of available physical, mental, systemic, and influential resources.

Knowledge that doesn’t lead to wisdom is nothing more than empty facts and concepts.  While the regurgitation of such might seem impressive, it doesn’t make a positive difference unless you are taking a scholastic test.  Wisdom takes the disparate facts and concepts and combines and develops them into the understanding which can lead to a positive difference.  Even then, until that wisdom or understanding is translated into objects, behaviors, and attitudes (technology) that really do result in positive developments, the wisdom is empty.  The true value of the guru on the mount isn’t in what he or she says, but in what difference their “wisdom” makes once the supplicant comes down off the mountain and makes day to day changes to thoughts and behaviors.

It can be understood, then, that true intelligence isn’t measured in the knowledge a person can recall and express.  It is only partially exhibited in the wisdom and deeper understanding  they develop from the knowledge they have acquired.  Ultimately, it is demonstrated in the positive difference that is made from the dissemination and application of that wisdom to themselves, others, and the world around them.

Our education system seems weighted towards rewarding those who can acquire and demonstrate knowledge.  It should, in addition, expand recognition to those who are able to transform that knowledge into measurable wisdom.  The highest reward would then be reserved for those who demonstrate the application of their wisdom into technologies that serve the world around them.

How might that work?  Here are some simplified examples applied across some different disciplines:

Math, Physics, and Chemistry:  Like many, I was not a big fan of story problems.  That said, learning how to manipulate formulas correctly without tying those formulas to application examples would seem to strike at the heart of what I’m concerned about.  All of our learning should be focused on how to apply what we learn--if not to something the student will occasionally face, at least to something concrete enough that they can see why there is value in learning the formulas.  I hated high level math and chemistry because all it seemed to be were rules and methods for moving numbers and symbols around on a page.  Physics was a little better, but often deteriorated to merely a different form of math.  Problem solving should be the focus of our STEM education, rather than problem solving be a method to get the right equation and answer on a test.

English and literature:  The best English teacher I had threw out the sentence diagrams and endless grammar and taught us what and how our words communicated.  If you want to say this, then here is how you approach it.  If you want to communicate this, then here are the basic rules and reason that governs your communication.  She even told us we could break some rules if we did it on purpose and if it accomplished the purpose of what we were trying to communicate.  Literature is too often presented as classical stories that students are forced to read and then regurgitate facts about the plot and characters.  The next level would be to try and foster an understanding of what the writer wanted to communicate in the story, how the characters’ actions and motives lead to the consequences seen, and what we learned from the story that might change how we approach our own challenges and joys in life.  Taken from that perspective, even younger children could get much more out of literature and, I might add, more quickly learn to distinguish between really good writing and simple fluff.

Some who agree with me otherwise may object to my thesis because it doesn’t address the valuable knowledge and experience that wouldn’t seem to directly lead to technology.  What about music, literature, classical studies and other so-called liberal arts?  This is a valid criticism.  I would like to learn Latin, be able to discourse on classical philosophies and comparative religions.  I want to be exposed to great painting, sculptures, fine music, and other ennobling and uplifting experiences.  There is more to life than STEM knowledge.  I would only say that I think these are also useful and do lead to valid technologies by sharpening and increasing the value of our primary tool, our intellect.  These classical disciplines help shape our creativity and expand our perspectives, thus increasing our capacity to achieve greater intelligence and more effectiveness in all other pursuits.  So, don’t get me wrong, I am all for any person’s exposure to more classical pursuits.  I think it is a shame that our school systems seem to be moving away from these things to a focus on solely STEM stuff and sports.

In summary, I think we do a disservice to our society and our developing youth by too narrowly measuring what we deem as academic success.  While acquiring knowledge and skills is important, I think it pales in comparison with an education that teaches the upcoming generation how to reason, problems solve, and constantly be learning in order to adapt to an ever more quickly changing world.  To do this, we have to get beyond facts and concepts to concentrate more on developing the wisdom and intelligence that will be necessary to take our species successfully on into the future.

What I Don't Know

Things I Don’t Know:

1)    I Don’t Know Why People Do the Things They Do.  I can observe people’s actions and behaviors, but I can only guess at why they act the way they do.  I make a grave error when I assume somebody’s motives and reasons based on how their behavior affects me or others around them.  I may assume malice or affection when they haven’t felt either.  Even if they tell me their reasons, I may only get half the story as people are complicated and may have multiple, even conflicting, reasons behind their choices.  The lesson?  It is a dangerous self deception to categorize or stereotype others based solely on their observed behavior or choices.   Deal with the behavior and actions without assuming the motives.  I should explain the consequences of others’ actions and negotiate a change in behavior rather than try and change what I might think are the other person’s ideas or assumptions.

2)    I Can’t Speak for God.  Whether you believe in God, providential fate, or just the random chance of life, I don’t know the mind of the universe.  I can’t define for you the ultimate truth.  I can’t tell you who God loves or hates (although I hope he doesn’t hate) or why he allows or causes certain things.  I can tell you what I believe based on my own experience and thoughts, but I can’t extend that out to apply to all humanity as the one and ultimate truth.  Nor do I feel comfortable in telling most that their beliefs are deluded, evil, or just wrong.  I can only say what I believe and how I might feel different from them and allow them to accept or reject it as they choose.  The lesson is that I’m slow to accept the ultimate truth as presented by others without first gaining a testimony of those truths through my own experience and rumination.  Even then, I can only adopt it as what I now believe and not assume everybody will or should believe the same.

3)    I Don’t Know History:  I consider myself an amateur historian, but I also recognize that most of what I’ve learned about history is from what somebody else wrote, and often that was written based on what still others may have presented earlier--resulting in opinions and perceptions based on opinions and perceptions.  History is written by historians and few, if any of them present an unbiased view.  And, the farther we go back in time, the fewer are the verifiable facts from which to draw assumptions.  Hence, we are left to try and draw conclusions from incomplete information often handed down from biased sources.  The lesson?  Take all historical “facts” with a large grain of salt.  It’s always a valid question to ask, “how do we really know that?”  And on a related note. . .

4)    I Don’t Know Reality:  My limited understanding of quantum physics is that scientists have shown that the very act of observing a thing, changes the thing.  Further, objects and situations can appear vastly different depending on the focus and perception of the viewer.  Hence, it seems that our limited mortal viewpoint makes it impossible to have a conclusive perception of reality.  Rather, all I have is my perception of reality as I see it--which is likely skewed and incomplete at best.  I have told others that I don’t think anybody has a right to an opinion until they can understand and argue the facts from at least three different and opposing perceptions.  Even then, I realize a true reality may be vastly different still.  The lesson is to recognize and accept that how we see our reality is a child of our perception and not our perceptions being the children of any fully discernible reality.

5)    I Don’t Know that I’m Right:  I can know my opinion and preferences.  I can know what I think is best, at least for me.  I can express and explain my perception.  But, I can never know with complete certainty that I’m right.  Why?  To be absolutely sure that I’m right, I would need to meet a few impossible criteria.  One, I would need to have a complete understanding of the situation from all the different perspectives.  I would need to understand the thoughts, motivations, and intentions of all the other people involved.  I would need to feel comfortable that my own intentions and perceptions were all motivated by the greater good for all involved, including individuals, other life forms affected, and the environment.  If you can find somebody who is able to say they meet all those criteria, then they can say they are right--but they are also deluded.  Lesson?  Humility and a willingness to always entertain the possibility of more information and a better understanding--leading to the possibility you may NOT be totally right.
6)  I Don’t Know Jack:  Bottom line is that I don’t know Jack.  Like all of you I am muddling my way through life based on too little information and not enough understanding.  I’m just trying to do the best I can with what I got--and often I mess up.  My only hope is that if I’m trying to do little harm and occasionally some good, that whatever fate comes next in the eternities it will take that into account and not dump me in some proverbial lake of fire and brimstone.  Good luck out there in your own journey towards knowing what you don’t know.

Empathy: The Key to Peace

The world’s problems are crying for solutions, they always have.  Never has there been a time in history where peace was universal, neither between countries, nor among individuals.  All sides in conflict seem to want peace, but they are much less willing to do what is necessary to achieve peace.  More often than not, we demand peace at the other party's sacrifice.  If only they would see the justice and morality of our position and give in, then there would be peace.  And, once bought into this blame game, we feel justified in settling for less than peaceful solutions because it is, of course, the other party’s fault that we can’t come to a peaceful agreement.

So, is going soft and giving in the answer to finding peace?  Should we just let the other party have their way and sacrifice our position?  Is that what it takes to gain peace?  Somehow making ourselves a martyr for the cause of peace seems a less than ideal solution.  In terms of the resentment and loss we may feel it may not be much better than violently demanding our own way.  But, are being tough to the point of violence in our own interests or soft to the point of total self sacrifice the only options we have?  I’d like to suggest another.

In summary, I think the answer lies in empathy as demonstrated through two simple-to-understand, but hard-to-enact concepts.  The concepts are distinguishing interests from positions, and making the other party’s interests as important as our own in reaching a consensus solution.  I will give references on where you can look further into these concepts at the end of this essay.

What is the difference between an interest and a position?  Imagine two individuals studying in a room.  One demands that a window in the room be opened to let in the fresh air.  The other demands that it be closed.  These are the positions of the the two parties involved.  Since a window can’t be both open and closed at the same time, it would appear to be an insolvable conflict.  To illustrate an interest vs. a position, imagine a third party enters the room.  After hearing each person’s position, they ask each person why they want the window open or closed.  One person states they want it closed because the wind is coming in and disrupting their papers.  The other states they want it open because it is stuffy and they need some fresh air.  Avoiding the wind and getting fresh air are the interests of the two parties.  The third party thinks a minute and then opens a window in the same room, but where the wind will not interfere with the person studying and suddenly, both parties are satisfied.  By concentrating on what each is interested in rather than their established positions, the consensus solution to the problem can be found.

Granted, that was a simplified example.  But the interesting question that applies to far more complex situations is why the two parties didn’t do this to begin with?  Why did they jump to and then become set in their positions rather than explore how looking at interests might lead to a solution agreeable to both?  This leads us to our second concept, putting the other person’s interest on an equal footing with our own--caring about them and a consensus solution as much as we do ourselves.  Most of us take a position and then build for ourselves an emotional and intellectual box from which we judge others and justify our choices, attitudes, and behaviors.  This self justification leads to condemnation and even hostility towards others when they don’t meet the expectations of our positions.  When that condemnation and hostility are felt by others, they will in turn retreat to their own boxes and we feed off each other’s self centeredness, often times creating and exacerbating the very situation we may be complaining about.

Deciding to care about others and communicate from interests rather than positions is a choice we make, but it isn’t always an easy choice--especially when we are used to viewing others as formal or informal competitors in a zero-sum world.  We approach things from an attitude that says for somebody else to get what they want, we have to give up something that we want.  We are also sure that others are out to take advantage of us or the situation and we need to be tough to hold our own.  Well, people aren’t perfect and most will be approaching things from the same type of box we ourselves have used in the past.  An important concept to remember is that when we start putting others on an equal basis with ourselves, it will invite them to do the same.  Just as operating from self centeredness invites others to build their own boxes, operating outside the box or showing interest in others and their interests, will invite them to do the same for us.  Another important point is to realize that just because you are caring for and listening to others, doesn’t require you to sacrifice your interests to benefit theirs.  You can still say no to something you aren’t willing to accept and search for better solutions.  But, you can do so without anger, judgement, and contention.

Some quick ideas before I bring this to an end.  Recognize that when you are having negative feelings towards another person, or even towards yourself in relation to the other party, you are likely operating from within that self centered box.  It is only when you put yourself in a state where you no longer have those feelings that you can begin to see clearly and focus equally on the other party.  Despite how justified you may think you are, negative feelings are almost a guarantee you are in an emotional and intellectual self centered box.  Also, we must be willing to put aside our assumptions and judgements and be willing to really listen to another person or group’s interest.  It is only when we try and see the situation completely from the other party's perspective that we can see clearly enough to come to a mutual consensus.  In other words, we have to care more about the relationship and coming to a solution more than we care about being right or achieving some self-centered definition of winning.

These concepts aren’t rocket science, but neither are they easy.  They take a concerted effort accompanied with a lot of introspection to bring to reality.  But, in the end, they will result in better relationships and better results for all involved.  For further information, I suggest the book Getting to Yes for more information on reaching consensus through focusing on interests.  I also suggest The Anatomy of Peace put out by the Arbinger Institute on recognizing and avoiding the self centered box.  Finally, the books on the 7 habits of success by Steven Covey are good sources for more information on seeking to understand before looking to be understood.  Good luck in gaining the empathy that will change the world.