The Simultaneous Expansion of Knowledge and Ignorance

An earlier article by Andrea inspired me to look more closely at one of her graphics.

The graph comes from an article on the expansion of ignorance. I must confess that prior to reading the original article I did not automatically accept the graph since it seemed counter-intuitive. Consequently I felt the theory needed to be revisited. Upon perusal, and noting the ensuing comments, I am convinced thereof. So this is my effort.

The original article does not clarify the X and Y axes, so I have taken this liberty.

I have considered the X axis to be Time, and the Y axis to be Quantity (or the number of questions and answers). A cursory examination seems to suggest that we start off from a point of "ignorant bliss", namely we ask nothing and therefore we know nothing. However, over time we begin to ask questions, the more questions we ask, the fewer answers we get, the more ignorant we become. Therefore, given the propensity of humans to not appear ignorant, the optimal approach would seem to be not to ask questions and therefore suppress your ignorance.

The old maxim "Don't argue with a fool, most people won't know the difference" would seem to apply.

However the original author postulated that every answer leads to more questions, which grow at an exponentially faster rate. As we acquire more knowledge so we become more ignorant at the same time, but this didn't comprehensively answer it for me. It seemed too simplistic.

The Revised Theory

Since it is my contention that you cannot remain "blissfully ignorant" I postulate that as we begin life we start acquiring knowledge by asking questions (The definition of "questions" does not have to be the traditional view). Given that children have enquiring minds this assumption seems intuitive. In the early days the extent of your ignorance is limited only by your intellectual development and the number of questions that you ask. In other words, assuming that there is a maximum limit to the amount of knowledge you can absorb at a given stage of development, you reduce your ignorance by asking more questions. It is assumed that we cannot ask all the right questions to match the level of available answers, since knowledge builds upon itself.

Now, over time you should reach an optimal point, let's call it the point of "ignorant bliss". This is the point where you have acquired a significant amount of the known knowns, and could be considered to be your optimal point. This is also the point where you find a lot a pretentious fools, where stereotypes and prejudice abounds. If we took a given level of intellect in a society, it could be the point at which a nation becomes functionally literate, and functional literacy will mean different things for different nations. By my estimation, I would assert that most people function at a level below their optimal point, they haven't asked enough questions and therefore could easily reduce their levels of basic ignorance.

“You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.” (Naguib Mahfouz, Nobel Laureate in Literature 1988)

Once you reach your optimal point further advances in knowledge can only come at the expense of extra questions, meaning that your mind will produce new questions as a function of your exploration. I think advanced ignorance expands as a result of the increase in known unknowns, but this isn't tantamount to everday ignorance. You will note that the graphs remain exponential, meaning that knowledge builds upon itself and questions grow exponentially as a consequence. What is interesting is not that we will never have answers to the questions, but that the answers are merely a function of time. Above the point of optimality you will note that a horizontal line will intersect the questions first and answers second, the difference being time. Therefore it is logical to assume that scientific endeavour will answer many known unknowns, it is merely a matter of time.

Update: The time function can exceed a human lifespan. Furthermore, the differential between questions and answers would be greater for higher IQ individuals and nations, since they would have the ability to recognise and define a known unknown. Using the same reasoning, it is intuitive to deduce that the slopes of the respective curves would also be affected by cognitive abilities. A higher IQ type would have steeper curves, given that the time to answers would be shorter, and vice versa. (Hat Tip: Para Bellum)

Therefore to find solutions to South Africa's problems will mean pushing beyong the point of optimality and risk exposing ourselves as being ignorant. I encourage your thoughts so that we can improve on this theory and relate it to South Africa.