House of Eratosthenes

Dennis Prager has said “I’d rather have clarity than agreement.” There doesn’t seem to be any place on the whole Internet that I can link to really give a good context for this, so I thought I’d just jot down what I know about it in a blog post, and then make this the place. There is a lot of wisdom packed into those few words. They are worthy of preponderance, post-ponderance and mezzo-ponderance.

It’s an important thought to have, too. It explains maybe two thirds, or perhaps more, of the human conflicts I’ve personally had. So many times per year I find myself asking for clarification about something, and half a heartbeat later I find myself in the middle of some kind of tempest. Melee. Imbroglio. Mess. Which is supposed to be all my fault. Last time it happened was Friday, May 10th, in the middle of the afternoon, about six hundred miles from here.

I can’t add too much more to “I’d rather have clarity than agreement.” But I can add something. And what I have to add, is this:

It shouldn’t be a necessary thing to have to point out. But, it is. Because it’s necessary to point it out in some contexts, we know there are some people who go the other way: They’d rather have the agreement than the clarity. If nobody felt that way about it, you wouldn’t be able to cause conflict simply by favoring the clarity.

We can go further than that: If these people would prefer agreement over clarity in some specific situation, they didn’t start off that way when the situation came up. No, take this to the bank, they’ve been building on that preference for awhile. Probably all their lives. Consider all the everyday things you need to do when there isn’t full agreement, that you’re spared from doing when there is agreement. When everyone assembled agrees, you don’t have to do…inspection. Introspection. Substantiation. Challenge. Response. Proofs. Rebuttals. Qualifications. Inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning. Argument framing. Hypothesizing.

So you see, nobody ever says “I’d rather have agreement than clarity.” They just chafe at the idea of doing any real, flippin’ mental work. They mimic, and they chide others for failing to mimic properly.

When there is agreement without clarity, nobody has to admit they don’t know something. This is hazardous. The beginning of the acquisition of all knowledge is “I don’t know.” You have to admit you don’t know something, in order to learn whatever it is. Last time I had to do that was not two weeks ago; it was more like half an hour ago.

This seems to be related to another eternal-question, having to do with Process v. Outcome. The Google search, from what I can tell, nets a whole bunch of results that all seem to have something to do with inflated eggheads extolling the virtues of process elevated above outcome. Some even go so far as to say that the more modern thinkers, fixated on process, are more likely to conduct mind-expanding experimentation, and arrive at a better final result. I guess I’m old school — seems to me they aren’t giving a fair or accurate consideration to the whole concept of “outcome.” When we consider these two values in the context of “which one is better?” we must necessarily start with the premise that to favor the one, places the other in jeopardy. In other words — to really weigh them against each other, we have to ask the question “Is it better to follow the correct process and achieve a crappy outcome, or is it better to achieve the desired outcome by straying from the established process?”

Those of us who have dealt too much with an intrusive and inefficient government don’t need to think twice when we answer that. There is a phrase to describe the process-over-outcome thinking: “The operation was a complete success, the patient died.” It refers to the bureaucrats, and the bureaucracy-minded, following their precious rules and losing track of the objectives. The thing to ask yourself is: What if you’re the soon-to-be-dead patient? What’s going to be important to you?

I detect a parallel, perhaps a very important one, between the Prager clarity/agreement divide and the pop-psych process/outcome divide. Based on all I’ve seen of it, it seems to me that the clarity is valued by people like me who elevate the suitability of the outcome above dogmatic fidelity to the defined process, and the agreement is craved by those who are committed to the process at the expense of the outcome. I think they’d agree, that the benefit from doing it their way is a quicker and easier assessment of whether the right pathway is being followed. It’s a lot like the range chief at my local firing range insisting on an orange or yellow action flag be inserted in the pistol and rifle actions whenever the range is called cold. It makes the inspection easier, and therefore quicker and more effective, therefore safer. But with all those desirable deliverables, let’s not kid ourselves, the achievement is made through slicker thinking involving lower effort. A lot of times, like at that firing range, this is entirely appropriate. Deep thinking is expensive; how much deep thinking can you afford?

But with the more elaborate and unorthodox challenges in life — and that is, arguably, what life is as far as we humans are concerned — a question arises: If the outcome at the end of it all is, that the patient dies, then who cares? And the answer is only obvious: The patient! He isn’t going to want lower-effort thinking, and who can blame him?

Thing I Know #401. People who refuse to work with details don’t fix things.

something to do with inflated eggheads extolling the virtues of process elevated above outcome. Some even go so far as to say that the more modern thinkers, fixated on process, are more likely to conduct mind-expanding experimentation, and arrive at a better final result

But of course!

The eggheads are all academics, which means they’re all leftists. Fixation on process appeals to Marxoids, because it’s the only way to make leftism work. One can churn out all kinds of wonderfully clever ideas if those ideas — by definition — never come into contact with reality. It’s the only way to get tenure. (Tom Sowell defines an intellectual as someone whose work begins — and ends — with ideas). Too bad the “better final result” never arrives… even after you’ve silenced, exiled, or executed all the dissenters.

Examples are legion, but we have several hundred comments from our favorite cuttlefish collective to really drive the point home. Actual temperature readings aren’t even close to the models’ predictions? Throw some more process at the data, until you can massage it into line with the preferred outcome.
- Severian | 05/24/2013 @ 17:04
In fairness, perhaps it’s my personal verbiage when inquiring after “details” from
folk who are clearly reciting from the first paragraph of the only script provided for them.

Apparently “What the 4U<K are you talking about? ", or "Who, exactly, did THAT little bit of economics/sociology/psycology/recent university polling come from?" does NOT promote discussion of, say, paragraph #3.

Apparently, neither does "Demonstrably consistant source(fill in the blank) has shown (I TRY to avoid proved) otherwise”.

I HAVE had SOME success boraching the human condition citing Aesop, Brothers Grimm, Tales of 1001 Arabian Nights, H.C. Anderson, and Dr. Seuss. Oddly, once such folk eventually realise they’ve been hoist by their own petard (OK, sandbagged) “Well ,yeah, but…but… it’s complicated!” seems to be the Ol’ reliable walk-back preamble for “What does it matter…?” .
- CaptDMO | 05/25/2013 @ 06:42
[…] Completely Fake Evolutionary Husband Doll Tragedy Not About the Nail Words Most Abused by the Left Memo For File CLXXX “Star Trek” Writer Apologizes For One of the Best Scenes in the Movie Steaks I Made a […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 05/29/2013 @ 06:53
[…] can’t find an Internet-linkable source, other than the one I put together, for Dennis Prager’s wonderful statement of “I’d rather have clarity than […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 07/02/2013 @ 08:00
[…] From the above, a question emerges: Do the details even matter? This primary-split between Architects and Medicators leads to all, or most, of the arguing we do about anything else, because some of us have learned since toddler-hood that no problem can be solved without grappling with the details, and others among us have learned that there’s no effective solution that truly relies on them, therefore those of us who sweat and lose sleep over them are just being silly. The latter group is often seen, in a ritual that appears to make perfect sense to them, participating in absurd commmittee hearings and town hall meetings — in some cases even voting sessions, as a legislative body — “passing the bill so we can find out what’s in it,” to coin a phrase. This is, I think, what Dennis Prager was talking about when he said “I’d rather have clarity than agreement.&#8… […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 07/21/2013 @ 13:21
[…] From the above, a question emerges: Do the details even matter? This primary-split between Architects and Medicators leads to all, or most, of the arguing we do about anything else, because some of us have learned since toddler-hood that no problem can be solved without grappling with the details, and others among us have learned that there’s no effective solution that truly relies on them, therefore those of us who sweat and lose sleep over them are just being silly. The latter group is often seen, in a ritual that appears to make perfect sense to them, participating in absurd commmittee hearings and town hall meetings — in some cases even voting sessions, as a legislative body — “passing the bill so we can find out what’s in it,” to coin a phrase. This is, I think, what Dennis Prager was talking about when he said “I’d rather have clarity than agreement.&#8… […]
- Memo For File CLXXXII | Rotten Chestnuts | 07/21/2013 @ 14:23

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Memo For File CLXXXFriday, May 24th, 2013

Memo For File CLXXX
Friday, May 24th, 2013