Online access to reference materials is amazing. Want info on a movie’s cast? imdb.com. Need to know how much money that movie made yesterday? boxofficemojo.com. Then there’s Wikipedia. Despite attempts to game the system and despite sometimes overzealous volunteer editors, Wikipedia is an extraordinary source for summary information on nearly any topic, usually with robust citations for those who want to learn more.
As we revel in this luxury of ready access to answers, it’s worth considering the tradeoffs. Knowing provides closure, but the mystery of not knowing inspires curiosity, wonder and a shared quest for answers. Are we losing the richness of the mystery? Are we corrupting our freedom to even ask those around us what they know?
LMGTFY (Let Me Google That For You)
“Just Google it” is such a conversation killer. The ease of finding answers is creating a moratorium on asking basic questions. Rather than sharing a simple answer, there’s a snarky expectation that everyone do the same basic research rather than asking friends. It’s miserly.
It destroys the oral tradition that includes not only the answers but layers of richness. The individual’s perspective on the issue. Their unique way of talking about it. How important it is and why. What other perspectives people have. Who else is an expert. The answer is not enough. Without the context – the metadata so to speak – we’ll never really understand the answers to our questions.
The Laziness and Danger of Simple Answers
Saying “Just Google it” is more lazy than someone asking a question without Googling it. It’s a static perspective, that if a question has an answer, we don’t need to examine the question anymore. That question has an answer, and that’s all we need to know. That question has an answer, and nothing we do can ever make the answer anything else. If we know the answer, we also never have to be curious about other points of view. Why would we? We can hide behind The Answer. How lazy and stagnant!
Easy access to superficial answers has killed our curiosity and made us vulnerable to anyone skillful enough to create an innocent story around darker plans (see Privacy and the NSA or Too Big To Fail banks). This lack of curiosity is mirrored in what news outlets feed us: headlines with no depth on a small set of stories prioritized by a few decision makers. What if we demanded more?
Last week, ProPublica published Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say. This is a deeper look into the question of “how are the banks aiding the recovery from the real estate crisis?”, but it’s unlikely that any major news outlet will run with the story. The stock answer of “oh, the banks got bailed out and paid the government back and are doing better now because of new government laws” distracts us from engaging in deeper analysis and demanding accountability.
The Land of Incomplete Information
What if we didn’t have the answers? What if we were in the land of incomplete information? What if it was amazing? What if a little delayed gratification on finding out the stock answer to our question led to a more thorough understanding of the issue and…AND deeper connection with those around us from talking about it? Is it worth not knowing for a few minutes? What would it take for us to try it out?
The question starts the conversation. The answer ends it. Let’s start more conversations and let them flourish in the land of incomplete information. Let’s set aside our egos and be okay with talking about something without knowing everything. We might even need to admit the things we don’t know. Terrifying, right?
(This article was originally published on arthurcoddington.com)