Although many people achieve mastery of some areas of human knowledge, for any subject, and for any master, there is still something left to learn. Because nobody can know all there is to know about anything, we all have gaps in our knowledge — little patches of ignorance. But some people are uncomfortable with their own ignorance. They don't want to acknowledge it to themselves or to anyone else. If the urge to avoid acknowledging their own ignorance is strong, some people adopt techniques for obscuring ignorance.
Often, this behavior harms only those who choose to obscure their own ignorance. It defers opportunities to learn, or worse, deprives them of those opportunities altogether. But in some circumstances, other people are also affected. For example, in a team effort all team members depend on each other. If Team Member A is ignorant of something important to the effort, and if Team Member B is unaware of A's limitation, the team's performance might be harmed if B relies on A to carry out a responsibility that requires knowledge A lacks.
In today's work environments, with responsibilities shared across teams or groups, the pattern of obscuring one's own ignorance can lead to expensive delays and failures. Knowing how to recognize this behavior is therefore helpful to team members and especially to team leaders.
Techniques for obscuring ignorance
Below is a little catalog of techniques people use to obscure their ignorance from others. In what follows, I use the name Oscar to refer to the person who tries to obscure his ignorance from others.
- Use the nominal fallacy
- The nominal Obscuring ignorance harms those who
choose to obscure their own ignorance.
It defers opportunities to learn, or
worse, deprives them of those
opportunities altogether.fallacy [Levy 1997] is a rhetorical fallacy that causes confusion between naming something and explaining it. Having given a name to something, we succumb to this fallacy when we believe that the name explains the thing named. One might also conjecture the existence of a meta-nominal fallacy, whereby assigning a category to something causes us to believe that we have explained the thing categorized.
- By mastering the terminology — or even merely mastering the buzzwords — of a subject area, Oscar can convey the impression that he has mastered that subject area.
- Interview, don't converse
- The term conversation generally denotes an exchange of spoken words. The exchange is usually informal but it does have a widely accepted structure. For a conversation between A and B, that structure would imply that A and B, in turns, contribute thoughts to the exchange or make inquiries of one another.
- An interview is a kind of conversation in which one partner, say Alpha, is the interviewer and the other, say Beta, is the interviewee. In this arrangement, Alpha asks a series of questions, and Beta responds, usually with a comment or insight that pertains to Alpha's question.
- In interviews, the interviewer (Alpha) has near-total control of the conversation. Alpha can pursue any idea that arises. Or Alpha can chose to raise a new topic. This power is useful to those who, like Oscar, want to obscure their ignorance. Oscar can terminate any portion of the conversation that he feels might expose his ignorance. He can also direct the conversation towards areas of the subject matter with which he feels more familiar.
- To detect this technique, in addition to the stream of questions from Oscar acting as interviewer, notice sudden swerves away from some concepts, or towards others. Watch for Oscar to ask questions that don't seem to connect well with the interviewee's response to the previous question. This can indicate such a level of ignorance that Oscar doesn't understand the interviewee's response well enough to ask a sensible follow-up question.
- Set the pace
- By setting the pace of the discussion, Oscar can limit anyone's ability to guide the exchange. He then has more freedom to guide it himself in his preferred direction, or away from any areas he wants to avoid. He can accomplish this easily if he maintains a steady flow of comments and questions. If he loses the initiative, he tries to regain it by interrupting whoever is speaking.
- Invoke confidentiality
- If Oscar feels pressed or backed into a corner, he might invoke confidentiality as an excuse for deflecting the conversation. Or he might use confidentiality to assert that he can "say no more at this time." He might even claim that no one present "should say anything further on this topic." By abruptly terminating the current branch of the discussion, Oscar can prevent it from entering his areas of ignorance, in a way that seems to others to demonstrate that he knows more than anyone, when in fact he knows less.
- Violate norms
- Norms relating to respect for others enable discussion participants to engage on difficult topics while keeping relationships intact. Violations of these norms tend to elicit emotional responses that distract participants from whatever was the current topic. By intentionally violating norms, Oscar creates distractions and puts people off balance. That enables him to direct the conversation away from his areas of ignorance.
- Hone your word salad skills
- Word salad is another technique, but the term is misleading. It suggests a stream of random words. What Oscar actually does when employing this technique is different. He produces a marginally coherent mixture of formulaic utterances, embolalia, and phrases of art either for the relevant domain, or for what Oscar believes are or might be relevant domains. By pumping out this drivel at a high rate and for a long time, Oscar can prevent anyone interjecting a retort or correction. More important, in meetings of predetermined duration, Oscar can consume valuable time, reducing the chances of anyone raising topics he knows nothing about.
- Exploit ambiguity
- Ambiguity can provide very effective cover for ignorance. For example, in a discussion of automobile models, if one is unsure of the distinguishing features of sedans vs. coupes, using the term passenger car or vehicle could provide a "safe" alternative. Watch for uses of ambiguity as a tool for covering ignorance.
- Abject surrender
- Abject surrender is useful to Oscar when he finds himself explaining or defending a position or prior statement. For example, suppose Oscar is asked, "Why did you choose Magenta?" Instead of explaining his choice, which might require some knowledge he feels he lacks, Oscar might say, "You're right, I probably should have chosen Fuchsia." The characteristic of abject surrender that clearly identifies it is the neutrality of the query that precipitates the surrender. The surrender, in context, seems surprising and premature, because there has been no evident attack.
Judge with care the motivations of those who use techniques like those described here. Some people work in environments so unhealthy that revealing ignorance is not a safe thing to do. The penalty for doing so can be unjust and severe. If you work in such an environment, consider using these techniques only as a temporary measure — until you can make a safe exit. Top Next Issue
Love the work but not the job? Bad boss, long commute, troubling ethical questions, hateful colleague? This ebook looks at what we can do to get more out of life at work. It helps you get moving again! Read Go For It! Sometimes It's Easier If You Run, filled with tips and techniques for putting zing into your work life. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Devious Political Tactics:
- Counterproductive Knowledge Work Behavior
- With the emergence of knowledge-oriented workplaces, counterproductive work behavior is taking on new
forms that are rare or inherently impossible in workplaces where knowledge plays a less central role.
Here are some examples.
- Narcissistic Behavior at Work: VII
- Narcissistic behavior at work prevents trusting relationships from developing. It also disrupts existing
relationships, and generates toxic conflict. One class of behaviors that's especially threatening to
relationships is disregard for the feelings of others. In this part of our series we examine the effects
of that disregard.
- Career Opportunity or Career Trap: I
- When we're presented with an opportunity that seems too good to be true, as the saying goes, it probably
is. Although it's easy to decline free vacations, declining career opportunities is another matter.
Here's a look at indicators that a career opportunity might be a career trap.
- Time to Let Go of Plan A
- We had a plan. It was a good one. Our plan seemed to work for a while. But then troubles began. And
now things look very bleak. But people can't let go of the plan. For some teams in this situation, there
isn't a Plan B. For others, Plan B is a secret.
- On Reporting Noncompliance
- Regulating compliance with process design in organizations requires monitoring process usage. Typically,
process monitors depend on reports from process participants. In blame-oriented cultures, fear of retribution
can limit what these reports contain.
See also Devious Political Tactics and Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming March 29: Time Slot Recycling: The Risks
- When we can't begin a meeting because some people haven't arrived, we sometimes cancel the meeting and hold a different one, with the people who are in attendance. It might seem like a good way to avoid wasting time, but there are risks. Available here and by RSS on March 29.
- And on April 5: The Fallacy of Division
- Errors of reasoning are pervasive in everyday thought in most organizations. One of the more common errors is called the Fallacy of Division, in which we assume that attributes of a class apply to all members of that class. It leads to ridiculous results. Available here and by RSS on April 5.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info