One of my favourite quotes is from the British philosopher Bertrand Russell:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
I read a very interesting book on this topic a number of yeras ago:
Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership, by Howard Gardner. Gardner examines the ability of leaders to communicate effectively with the people they are supposed to lead, and he finds that in a diverse organization (like society as a whole), the effective leader is able to target specific portions of the target audience in accordance with the different levels of development as identified by
Jean Piaget. What he finds is that many highly intelligent leaders fail because they are unable and even unwilling to communicate effectively with a critical part of society: the ones whose world view is frozen at the level of the 5-year old mind.
According to Piaget, the typical 5-year old sees a world of black and white, right and wrong, good guys and bad guys, the forces of right against the evil-doers, etc. More developed thinkers see the complexities and shades of gray in this world. When black and white thinkers hear people describe those complexities, it sounds like lying to them. It sounds wishy-washy and indecisive. In politics, someone is either assigned to the good guy camp or the bad guy camp. A person in the good guy camp is not capable of doing anything good, and vice versa. Gardner shows that too often the people who can see the shades of gray dismiss the black and white thinkers as not worthy of consideration, but in reality they are the ones who usually determine the outcome of an election. That is why most of the imbecilic political ads that dominate the airwaves during election season target that audience. Think of
Animal Farm, where no one can have an intelligent discussion because the mindless sheep have been trained to bleat out silly slogans about the goodness or badness of the number of legs so that no one can think straight.
In Scuba, the diver with the 5-year old mind will adhere to a diving phlosophy and keep bleating its tenets like Orwell's sheep, not going beyond the phrase to a level that allows intelligent understanding. I participated in a discussion a few years ago that was frustrating beyond belief. A participant had been taught to plan a dive by predetermining the depth of the entire dive and the time to be spent at that depth. One was supposed to stay at that depth for that time and then ascend. "Plan your dive and dive your plan!" he said. I replied that planning your dive like that is indeed one way to do things, but there were other kinds of dive plans and other kinds of dive profiles that were perfectly acceptable. No sir, he responded--if you don't do it that way, you are not planning your dive and diving your plan. Any other perfectly acceptable dive plan anyone else suggested was not planning, because it did not match the only plan he knew. "You've got to plan your dive and diver your plan," he said over and over and over and over again. I am sure he is saying it still.