You have the right to remain silent. Some might even consider it a responsibility.
In January 1980, college professor, and science fiction author, Isaac Asimov expressed alarm that American’s right to know information was hampered by their ability to understand it. Asimov wrote, “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
He went on to point out that politicians were, for the lack of a better term, “dumbing down” their campaign speeches to better appeal to their constituents. They also began sending very specific messages that being educated was elitist and that being an expert made you someone to distrust. Some 40 years later, this scenario is still playing itself out. Over the last decade, we saw politicians completely change the way they speak to each other, how they communicate with members of the press, and what they say to their constituents. The professionalism and dignity that was once synonymous with political office has fallen out of favor and replaced with personal insults, snappy comebacks, and simple catchphrases that characterize entire campaigns.
The disparagement of experts in the field of medicine, psychology, science, and economics has grown to critical proportions. To offer an opinion or analysis that is unpopular results in experts being accused of having political agendas or being engaged in personal gain. The label of elitism is still a favorite among politicians who have twisted the definition to mean that the opinion or will of the majority is an act of tyranny against the minority.
Asimov would no doubt recognize this and continue to be dismayed. But he would be further alarmed at how we have added layers of complexity that indicate that the overall knowledge and intelligence of the American public may be a house of cards that is ready to fall.
The introduction of the Internet was heralded as a way to bring knowledge to all people. Suddenly people would have, at their fingertips, the ability to access government documents, read the contents of House Resolutions and Senate Bills, and gain a better understanding of the processes of our government. The same is true of intellectual data, such as medical information, multicultural awareness, economics, philosophy, and so on.
Instead, we ended up with a frightening combination of confirmation bias, Dunning Kruger Effect (people who assume a level of expertise in a subject simply because they don’t know what they don’t know), and the rise of self-awarded search engine certificates of proficiency that lead people to believe that having conducted an exhaustive review of all of the writings on a personal blog, by an author that goes by the name “Human1” makes their understanding of topics such as epidemiology, public health, government process, federal budgeting, constitutional law, and international relations the equivalent to the knowledge of people who spent their entire life dedicated to careers in those areas. Indeed, they have found a way to raise their level of ignorance to what they believe is equal to the knowledge of others.
This phenomenon is not history simply repeating itself, it is a steady and strong progression of the type that reverses years of advances in scientific fields in favor of popular, and easily understood, opinions The question we face as we head into the next 40 years is how do we acknowledge that although intelligence and advanced education are not always correlated, knowledge is not elitist, and expertise, while imperfect, still represents the pinnacle of understanding a particular topic?
The rise of social media has placed us in the middle of the intersection of rights and responsibilities. People have a right to an opinion. Our foundational belief says that they have a right to express that opinion. But what responsibilities and obligations do they have after the opinion has been expressed? If someone recommends that people ignore expert advice and follow a certain course of action based on unverified information from questionable and un-credentialed sources, what responsibility do they have if someone is injured in some way? I’m not suggesting that we all become our brother’s keeper, but it wouldn’t hurt us to support each other in finding the best information.
For example, the anti-vaccination contingent is responsible for the rise of otherwise eradicated diseases based on information that is outdated, inaccurate, or from discredited sources. We see the same thing happening right now in other areas on social media. People with no background in medicine are offering opinions and courses of action to people about whether they should or should not receive the SARS-CoV-2, vaccine.
If challenged, they immediately, and incorrectly, respond that their First Amendment rights are being violated. They have the right to free speech, but in their definition, that also means they are relieved of the burden of any consequence. No right is unlimited; and with any right comes responsibility. Asimov suggested that social approval and rewards for learning would lend credibility to America’s right to know. Perhaps, we need to add the assumption of responsibility to that list.