Entry 2445, on 2026-06-09 at 11:39:14 (Rating 4, Politics)
I can understand that people cannot be fully informed about every possible subject that exists, so ignorance is not just excusable, it is inevitable. I can also understand that some people might be somewhat immodest in their general demeanour, and in many cases that might be quite justified when their achievements are taken into account, so arrogance is also a natural and often not unreasonable attitude to have.
My problem comes when those two things are combined: when people are ignorant but also arrogant. That is the cause of most of society's problems. And, yes, I am fully aware that I have made similar claims about other common flaws, both personal and cultural, for example: postmodernism, or the left-wing bias of the media, or the education system. But I think the arrogance and ignorance issue is deeper than those, and might underly those more obvious ones.
So I would like to present OJB's Second Law: that by themselves ignorance and arrogance are relatively harmless, but when combined, their effect is far greater than the combination of their parts. By the way, if you were wondering, OJB's First Law is closely related to this, and is: "The people in charge have no idea what they are doing".
The most obvious manifestation of the Second Law is in various forms of governance, that is where one person or group has control over the lives of others. The two most important examples of this are government and management. It also occurs a lot in people who see themselves as experts, whether that belief is justified or not.
If you have ever wondered why our governments - and this applies to all governments, not just those on the left or the right - make so many stupid decisions, and whose policies seem to be so ineffective, then just apply OJB's Laws. First, they don't know what they are doing, and second, they are both ignorant and arrogant in relation to the areas they are making decisions about.
For example, New Zealands's current Minister of Finance, and our previous one, both have no expertise in economics or finance, yet when they talk about their actions they seem absolutely confident that they have done the right thing for the economy: a subject area they know very little about. Clearly they are victims of both ignorance and arrogance.
Of course, they might still get good results, either by listening to real experts, or by considering all opinions and reaching a compromise, or even through pure good luck, but that is unlikely. I suspect that many real experts would be far less certain about the effectiveness of various economic interventions, because they know how convoluted the global economy really is, and understand that unintended consequences are common in complex systems.
So now I need to talk about "experts". Under no circumstances should we automatically believe individual experts on any topic. These people, maybe surprisingly, are also susceptible to my Second Law. While they may know a lot about a particular subject, they are often effectively the victims of ignorance because their area of expertise is so narrow.
After working in a university for almost 40 years, I can confidently report that I saw a lot of truth in this. There were very few academics who genuinely impressed me. Most of them I thought were nice people, but hopelessly out of touch with reality, because they were too deeply involved in their own tiny, frivolous little worlds.
One academic I know is an expert on politics, but is very dedicated to a "rules based" world, even when there is good reason to believe the rules don't work any more. Another teaches politics but identifies as a Marxist. Another thinks she can write critiques of Donald Trump from the point of view of a famous female writer from the past. I'm not saying their opinions are worthless; just that they need to be treated with a certain degree of skepticism.
I think my conclusions here are more or less irrefutable, because they seem to be based on both logic and real-world outcomes. But that really isn't enough, is it, because what is the point in criticising a system without offering an alternative?
First, there is a point in criticising the status quo without offering an alternative, because the implied alternative is to be skeptical of the current system. We can accept the system we currently have as long as we are aware of its limitations. When you see a minister of finance talking, remember that they are ignorant and arrogant, and judge them based on that, When you here an "expert" on climate change, remember that they may not be wrong, but they are also only presenting a subset of the facts based on their preferred conclusions, which are also the result of a form of ignorance and arrogance.
Second, there are alternatives. Direct democracy is the solution which immediately springs to mind. In this, all the major decisions affecting a country (but this could be extended to a city, company, institution, or group) are made by the citizens of that country (with restrictions based on age and possibly other factors).
There are obvious problems with this, both practical and philosophical. For example, from a practical perspective, how is the vote done cheaply, efficiently, and securely? The internet is the obvious answer there. And in a more philosophical context, how do we know the "average person on the street" is capable of making good decisions? Well, we don't, but as I have already said, we certainly don't have that assurance from our current decision makers either. Also, these votes would effectively crowdsource the decision, which means all opinions and approaches are automatically included. Finally, even if a bad decision is made, at least the people who made it can "take ownership" of it, so they might learn from the experience and make a better one next time. The "elites" are rarely affected by the consequences of their decisions, so they are unlikely to learn from their mistakes.
Representative democracy is not working, that's why so many governments around the world are unpopular, and why "populist" parties (Reform, NZ First, One Nation) are gaining in favour. The governments in many countries of recent years have campaigned on one thing and delivered something else. The easiest way to fix this is direct democracy. It's time for a change which will help avoid the curse of ignorance and arrogance!
There are no comments for this entry.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a comment below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. Note that your IP address will be stored and you will be blocked if you misuse this system. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
I do podcasts too! You can listen to my latest podcast, here: OJB's Podcast 2026-06-15 The First Trillionaire: Ignore them, and join me in celebrating true brilliance! Or subscribe to my podcast RSS feed, on my RSS Feeds page.
Latest Site News and Notifications (Desktop): You are currently viewing OJB's web site, version 2.4 which has some major changes, and possibly errors! Please report any problems to ojb@mac.com.
BLOG PAGE
